Obamanomics refers to the economic policies adopted during Obama's presidency. Basically, this neologism combines 'Obama' with ’economics.’ It focuses on Obama's tax, health care, and economic stimulus policies after the 2008 Great Recession. Whether a person is right- or left-wing determines how to interpret this phrase.

For those from the pro-active federal government camp who believe that we must protect Americans 'economic interests, Obamanomics is a good thing. This point of view usually agrees with the opinion that government intervention is required to rectify market failures and enhance social welfare. Rather, those who oppose Obamanomics - who tend to support the smallest possible role for government intervention in people's lives - regard such policies as harmful. They say such policies distort free-market competitive forces' inherent efficiency and balance while interfering unjustly in business affairs by picking winners.

One pillar of Obamanomics that was another point of great controversy was the bailout in 2009 for U.S. automobile manufacturers. The Obama administration came to the rescue when arguably America's most iconic domestic automakers were on the verge of collapse. Proponents saw this step as essential to protect an industry critical to the American economy and millions of jobs. These steps have been crucial and heroic for many admirers of President Obama, saving the economy from plunging into a depression. They frequently see President Obama as a leading player who, through these economic strategies, avoided what would have otherwise been even more adverse and protracted damage. It depicts him as a committed leader whose adverse economic circumstances didn't make the right choices easy.

Restructuring of Tax Policies

Obamanomics included substantial restructuring of tax policies, including high-income earners. The Obama administration pressed hard and raised income taxes on the highest earners. This reflected the conviction that a more equitable tax system would promote economic equity and ease rising income inequality in the United States. However, the government argued that those with the highest financial resources should bear a greater burden for the nation's fiscal health during economic recovery.

The cap on military and discretionary spending was another pillar of Obamanomics. It is part of the "sequester," a budgetary mechanism that seeks to cap government expenses in order to narrow an expanding federal deficit. The sequester is controversial: It implements sweeping across-the-board cuts in government spending. It was designed to rein in government spending and debt but sparked debate about whether that could threaten essential services or military strength.

Obama's 2010 Patient Protection Affordable Care Act was one of his most contentious policies. This major healthcare law aims to lower uninsured rates and limit growing costs. The ACA has been the greatest factor changing modern U.S. healthcare, featuring, among other things, individual mandates and subsidies for low-income people as well as healthcare exchanges to provide coverage options depending on available time or money. Some saw it as a step toward universal healthcare, while others criticized it for extending government involvement.

In the eyes of Obamanomics detractors, these policies represented a dangerous slide toward bigger government spending and higher taxes, with more regulation for good measure. To some people worried about socialism or a command economy, this was an ominous development for America. Critics saw these policies as an undesirable and pernicious extension of government influence in the economy, which damaged free-market dynamics and encroached on individual liberties. This differs sharply from the economic philosophies of former President Ronald Reagan - Reaganomics. Reaganomics promoted low taxes, cut spending on government, and lowered economic regulation. The idea was that the free market is more efficient than bureaucracy.

Accordingly, Obamanomics and Reaganomics are two different styles of economic policy structured around deeply differing political ideologies about the government's role in regulating the economy.

Obamanomics and the ARRA

The United States was faced with a widening fiscal deficit, a vanishing home market, and an uncertain stock exchange. Meanwhile, Lehman Brothers had spectacularly failed into bankruptcy, weakening further weakened banking systems around the globe. Also, the country experienced major job losses, which created economic urgency and despair.

Under these grim circumstances, the Obama Administration has made passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) a centerpiece of its economic strategy.

Proponents of Obamanomics often tout the Administration's brave moves during an uncertain time. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) intended to boost the economy. This law struck infrastructure, education, health care, and renewable energy badly. It was designed to train workers, assisting in a sustainable economic recovery effort.

Encompassing over US $ 800 billion in government spending spread out for ten years from fiscal year 2009 to 19, it was no small undertaking designed to revitalize an economy on its deathbed. The ARRA was based on the theory of Keynesian economics, which advocates government deficit spending to stimulate aggregate demand and lower unemployment. According to this theory, substantial spending in times like these can have a multiplier effect--increasing economic activity and creating still more jobs.

According to the proponents of Obamanomics and especially those behind the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), it was an economic necessity in order. The spending focused on immediate job preservation and investing in health care, education, and civil infrastructure to gain long-term economic benefits. This type of investment would quickly stimulate the economy and create a basis for future economic growth and improved conditions in areas critical to society.

Yet the ARRA, as well as Obamanomics themselves, came under considerable attack from economists such as N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University and others. These critics assailed the stimulus package, pointing out that it didn't reach its targets. The major bone of contention was the assertion, contradicting forecasts by its advocates, that ARRA had increased unemployment. Critics have claimed, therefore, that the stimulus contributed to crowding out private investment and impairing natural processes of economic recovery. This critique highlights a fundamental debate in economic policy: the degree of government intervention in the economy and its influence on private sector activities.

To sum up, the recovery act was an important part of Obamanomics. It represented a very big application of Keynesian economic principles in response to a severe financial crisis. Some people saw this as an effective and necessary response to the recession, but others questioned its effectiveness and what impact it would have on the rest of society. This division reflects the continuing debate about the necessity and extent of government involvement in economic matters.