I'll do that for him. The current administration has given businesses no incentive to hire. They haven't set forth a game plan that will be in place for 8 years. Businesses don't hire because of a promise made to spur growth for 1 year, they need a long-term commitment of what the business and political climate is going to be like for an extended period...this is something the Bush admin actually did pretty well. The political risk is pretty high right now, deterring many owners to take risks and try to grow their companies.
Businesses don't hire because they don't have the demand to hire. They currently have huge piles of cash and are sitting on them because the consumer doesn't have money. There's no magic "well if you do this policy we'll hire people" route. If there is need to add an employee, they will add an employee. Anyone who's ever run a business should know this.
You haven't really given any specifics though. Obama has governed conservatively, he's mostly just continued the policies of the previous administration, so if you liked Bush you should be OK with Obama. But neither of them is a liberal.
Also don't forget, Bush's administration ended with the biggest crash since the great depression, so uh...yeah.
The biggest flaw of Keynesian theory is the idea that you only need to spur one side of the equation.
No, that's not a flaw of Keynesian theory, that's a flaw of your understanding of economics. All Keynesian theory is about is counter-cyclical spending. Keynesian don't simply address one side, it simply addresses the government's reaction.
The administration has tried to address the consumer side through spending, but they haven't really done much for the business side.
Hilariously, you have the complete opposite of reality here. The administration has been very, very good to the business side, and not nearly good enough to the consumer, hence our current economic doldrums. Businesses have huge piles of cash, we're buying up their bad debt, relaxing policies, etc. The administration keeps hiring pro-business types, and is also hugely favored by Wall St, even moreso than Republicans, when it comes to contributions.
The argument is growth is brought on by demand. No sane business owner is going to try and grow their company if the demand isn't there. In order for there to be demand, consumers need to spend.
This is accurate. Consumers don't have the money, or the jobs, to go buy things right now. Public spending would be a good thing right now, but we're really not getting much of it. As you've correctly stated, giving piles of cash to banks and corporations isn't really helping hiring.
In order for consumers to spend, they need confidence that the business climate is healthy and they won't be losing their jobs. It's a pretty vicious circle which is why both sides of the equation need help. Addressing only the spending side of the equation is the biggest reason why the economy has stalled.
In order for consumers to spend, they need money and job security....companies have security, they don't have demand. You need to make the consumers better off, not the businesses, which we have been doing.
Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, so I can't blame him for the rapid increase in unemployment at the beginning of his term, it would have happened regardless of who was in the WH. But by providing incentives to only consumers and not offering much of anything for business, he has failed to jump start the economy.
Again, this is quite frankly bizarre, because it's pretty much the exact opposite of what has happened. Somehow you've looked at a massive unemployment rate, huge increases in poverty, and said the government has given the people too much. What earth are you on?
Also, the administrations stance on the value of our currency is leaving consumers with even less spending power. Wages are the same, but products are more expensive, leaving consumers with less discretionary income.
Wages have been stagnating for decades, while healthcare and housing have risen due to unregulated businesses and banking. You're correct on the lack of discretionary income, but you've misidentified the cause. Look at the % of money spent on healthcare and housing over the past few decades. We actually spend less on almost everything than our grandparents did, including food, as a % of income. Rising product prices in general aren't actually happening at a drastic rate(core inflation nearly flat).
You're close, but not quite there.