The influence of a president's economic policy is far less important to the economy than the private sector's influence. In fact, federal reserve policy probably has more influential than presidential economic policy. Presidential economic policy is usually centered around congressional legislation. However, that legislation once approved by congress may bear little resemblance to what the president proposed and if congress does not support the president's policy, then the policy is rather meaningless. Then there's the problem of timing. In the economic cycle there is a time to encourage and discourage expansion and most of all, a time to do nothing. If congress does not move rapidly with the legislation it may well come too lake.Presidents take credit for economic expansion and are held responsible for economic failure but for the most part, president's have little impact on the economy. They can use the office of the president to throw their support behind legislation and veto legislation but that's about it. The president submits a budget to congress, but it is congress that controls the spending not the president. The discretionary spending is only 1% of the budget.The economy is Obama's responsibility, I have not written otherwise.
The greatest impact on the economy is the private sector, followed by the federal reserve and congress. Yet we always hold the president responsible for the economy. I guess that's not surprising since we hold the president responsible for rising gas prices, scandals in government, failures in our educational system, illegal immigration, swine flu, and the war 1812.
If we held presidents responsible for the administration of the executive branch, which is their real job, then we just might get better results.
It's the policies that count. It's the regulations placed on businesses by the presidents departments that will cause the economy to grow or shrink.
Example like not approvaling the keystone pipeline and not more friendly to drilling.