Precisely! Damn, I knew I liked you, man.
The President.
A good leader, whether politically or in the board room, recognizes that they are not the expert in situations like these. What a good leader does is gather all of the experts in the equation and says "what is the worst case scenario? What is the best case? What is most likely?" Then, when all the experts have agreed with what the likely scenario is, the good leader then says to his other experts (on the economy, in this case), what happens if I do this? What does GDP do? How many end up losing their jobs? What do I have to do on fiscal spending to counter it?
He or She then gets the other party in the room and says "this is the likely scenario. I am willing to go with (Scenario F) in our options and that means this impact and I will need you to counter this with the following stimulus plan". And then, when all agreement is reached and execution is implemented, the last thing the good leader does is say "The buck stops here. I made this decision, it is what I get paid to do, and I am holding myself accountable for it. And I made it based on the input of all of these experts (you include the experts to make sure the public knows they are the ones that guided you and now they are vested, too).
But we don't have a good leader. We have an embattled, ego-maniacal twitter junkie who would do better as a substitute teacher in the local highschool. Some of this is his direct fault. Most of it is. Some of it is because the other party can't get over the fact he won and won't let him even try to do his job.
So what happened? We made decisions on the economy with incorrect data (death rate in NY and Italy guided national response, as an example) and a disjointed and completely silo'd political process because one side was determined for failure and the other was inexperienced and driven by ego and making it about themselves.
Who suffered? We all did. That is where we are. And it PISSES ME OFF.