What on earth do you think this man could have done that he has not done already, that would have caused the unemployment rate to actually be lower than it is right now? Can you answer that question?
In fact, I dare you to answer that question.
I don't have the time to read all the stuff you claim to analyze on a daily basis. I have a job that takes up most of my time.
I never get into debates with dueling statistics or data sources. Everything I say comes from nothing my own opinions based on my experience over the past 70+ years of observing life.
I am a staunch conservative - meaning that I believe in the constitution of the United States and think that anything that we do in contravention of that document is wrong. I believe that if culture and technology cause it to be antiquated in terms of applicability to an evolution of thought and process, then the instrument itself provides the answer - go thru the amendment process like we did for slavery for instance. We should never go thru a judicial process to look for 'loopholes' in the constitution or 'emanations from penumbra' to 'legislate from the bench' a controversial issue.
That said, I know centrists, centrists are friends of mine, and you, sir, are no centrist. Every reading of any of your posts take a hard leftist line. I have seen nothing but total ignorance of conservative thought on your part.
Every allegation you launch at conservatives in general and Romney in particular are stereotypes taken completely from the far left fringe of the DNC playbook.
No to answer your challenging rhetorical question - completely from my observations.
First - He might consider working with the GOP to come up with a true 'balanced approach' to deal with the economic problem. His definition of a 'balanced approach' is that the GOP has to vote exactly the way he wants them to. He does not recognize the existence of a legitimate point that deserves to be considered and negotiated away. It is his way or the highway. His response to such recommendations when confronted early in his presidency was "Elections have consequences - I won."
Second - he needed to give up on his election mantra of 'soak the rich' as his ONLY tool for dealing with the economy. He knows that is a lie - it is only useful as a campaign tactic to influence those ignorant voters who are obsessed with envy or greed or irresponsibility. Obama is intelligent enough to know that 'more taxes on the rich' will have exactly zero positive impact on the real economic problems. Taking 100 percent of their income would only run the government for half a year - and then their contributions for the remainder of eternity would be zero and we would really be in a worse fix.
Third - He could start acting as President of the United States instead of a community organizer who is motivated only by increasing his voter base by continued pandering to the very segments that are a big part of the problem (not only economic but cultural as well.) [I find it difficult to stay on strictly economic issues here.] Every thing he has done as president has been to exacerbate the problem he 'inherited' instead of trying to alleviate it. His 'stimulus' package was a payoff to his big money donors and vote-buyers. It did absolutely nothing for the economy except saddle it with another trillion dollars of debt. What it did was to save a lot of public union jobs so they could continue to provide their dues to go into buying and sheparding votes for him in the next election. That and kickbacks to his big money bundlers and donors in the 'green energy' debacles. His 'bailout' of GM and Chrysler (obviously not needed because Ford is doing just a well without the bailout) was nothing more than a transfrerral of their assets to the unions that caused the problems they had in the first place.
Fourth - he could have stopped lying when his campaign ended and started acting as POTUS instead of beginning his next campaign immediately. His 'saving' of the auto industry was nothing more than an implementation of what he continues to mock Romney about = 'making Detroit go bankrupt.' His characterization of what Romney suggested is a lie. Romney wanted the companies to go thru a structured bankruptcy in order to come out with a sustainable business model that would have ensured their long term survivability as prosperous corporations. Instead, Obama implemented an unfair bankruptcy that gave the unions what they wanted and shafted the taxpayers with debt. Obama calls this 'saving GM' but what he did was delay the time when a real bankruptcy will have to be negotiated - with much larger implications then next time. But in the meantime, his union thugs are pumping money into his campaign coffers. Same story with the green energy debacles - he rewarded his donors at the expense of the taxpayers. If you were not an Obama donor or vote buyer you were dumped - ask the Delphi employees who were completely destroyed while he was 'saving GM' for his union buds.
Fifth - he could have tried a model that had worked in a similar instance of economic trouble = the Reagan model. Instead, he chose the exact opposite tack than Reagan did. And with the disastrous results we have seen in the past four years.
Sixth - nevermind - I am sure your centrist mind has stopped caring at point number one - and I have to get ready for work.