I think this question is 180 degrees wrong.
I don't like Obama much, myself, but I think you're the "clueless" one -- big time.
Why? Because the main problem with Obama's economic stimulus plan was that it was TOO SMALL -- and it was too small partly because Obama and the Democrats were trying to court the political support of rightwing budget hawks like you.
Obama's final stimulus package, once it had been trimmed back to suit conservative "blue dog" democrats and the president had tried to sell it to a few sane Republicans, basically attempted to pour $800 billion into the US economy over 2 years so as to make up for flagging consumer demand.
The problem was - The stimulus should have involved at least $1,300 billion or $1.3 trillion per year, for two years. It should have totaled at least $2.6 trillion, meaning it was more than 2/3 too small.
At least that's the judgment of economists Dean Baker and James K. Galbraith, the latter of whom cites figures from the CBO to bolster his arguments about what the size of the stimulus SHOULD have been.
As Galbraith has pointed out, the CBO in early 2009 estimated that the financial crisis and the collapse of real estate values in much of the US had greatly traumatized American consumers of different classes, inspiring them to reduce their spending by an estimated 6 percent of GDP.
Obama's stimulus plan -- which had been kept small, partly to placate deficit hawks -- basically amounted to 2% of GDP.
In other words, the stimulus plan tried to fill up a hole in consumer demand in the budget amounting to about 6% of the nation's economic output -- but the stopper it put in the hole in consumer spending amounted to only 1/3 of that.
The stimulus was TOO SMALL to succeed.
Why does this matter?
If the stimulus had been big enough to spur enough US economic growth to shrink the unemployment rate significantly, that would have put millions of Americans back to work quickly -- and back to paying federal income taxes. Which would have helped shrink the deficit, by increasing federal revenues.
A large enough stimulus plan, if it shrank the jobless rolls significantly, also would have reduced the amount of money the federal government and the states were paying to maintain around 14 million people in (a) unemployment insurance and (b) food stamps, where necessary.
By reducing government expenditures on unemployment benefits and food stamps, it would have helped long-term deficit cutting once again.
An adequate stimulus program would have included federal aid to the states -- to keep them from slashing the pay and the jobs of teachers, firefighters, cops, social workers and the like.
Obama to his credit asked for a big program to help the states avoid bankruptcy, but the GOP refused -- with the result, of course, that state governments across the US are in financial crisis today. And slashing the pay and the jobs of teachers, firefighters, and cops.
Reducing the unemployment rate significantly also would have kept maybe 1 million American families (or more) from having to default on their mortgages.
Which would have helped the real estate market recover better than it has ...
By making the economic stimulus program TOO SMALL, Obama's economic team helped to perpetuate high unemployment, low federal and state government tax collections because of high unemployment, and a bad real estate market. Not to mention state-level budget crises in dozens of states today.
Was this "rich people's fault"?
Well, to the extent the "rich people" supported (a) the Republicans (b) the Tea Party deficit hawks and (c) some of the "Blue Dog" Democrats who balked at enacting an adequate stimulus package -- yes, it is the "rich people's fault."
Of course, some rich people are more to blame than others.
The billionaire Koch brothers who helped to underwrite the Tea Party and the far right of the Republican Party are much more to blame than -- say, relatively liberal and Democratic-leaning billionaires like Warren Buffett, George Soros and Bill Gates.
Democratic-leaning rich people like Buffett and Soros were more open to Obama and Co. taking an approach to economic stimulus that might have succeeded.
The Koch brothers and their Far Right comrades in destruction, on the other hand, have done what they could to sabotage the economic recovery, and with it the living standards of millions of Americans.