We’re in the trough of a rogue wave

I'm not an Economist and don't mean to be implying that I'm an expert in this field.  But I know how to read and I have taken some intro courses in economics in college, which I've probably forgotten.
So I've quoted some sources in this rant and your indulgence will be appreciated as I reach my hypothesis.  But to synopsize, the use of the current state of the economy as a political football is not intellectually supportable.
Rogue waves are huge waves that seem to appear out of nowhere and can destroy ships.  Remember the movie "Perfect Storm"?
These waves "seem to occur in deep water or where a number of physical factors such as strong winds and fast currents converge. This may have a focusing effect, which can cause a number of waves to join together."  Additionally the combination of smaller waves, seashore shapes and wind along with anomalies on the sea floor can help this process.
What does this have to do with the economy?
In The Economist, Arun Motianey describes a snake's meal traversing the length of its body.  Imagine two meals simultaneously being digested and the calamity that could result from the convergence of these two. These meals are analogous to "price shocks" caused by "over investment and overproduction".
Not unlike two waves in a body of water, combining to form a larger wave.
Government intervention is not entirely without effect.  Two such results are the change to the gold standard, implemented in the 1870s, and the policies implemented by Paul Volcker during the 1980s. And the national debt is certainly a factor.  The Bushes and Reagan have all contributed to this legacy and Obama is on track to do the same.  And while the economy is presently marginally affected by this obligation, it will ultimately have a meaningful impact.  The key word here being "will".
Obama's advisers seem to have acknowledged their relative helplessness in attempting to rectify the current economic calamity.  White House aides are quoted as saying "There is no small tactical shift we could have made at any point that would have solved that problem."  Which leaves me with the impression that most of the actions taken so far are for purely political reasons.  I've listed my sources below.
Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

1  Wikipedia 
2  (The Economist 090910  http://www.economist.com/  Subscription required.  )
3  (The Economist 090910  http://www.economist.com/  Subscription required.  )
4  http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
5  Time magazine 090310  http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015629,00.html )

The following quotes are from The Little Book of Economics by Greg Ip:

p. 122  “study by Elliot Parker at the U of Nev, Reno, the economy has grown faster under D than under R presidents since 1929.”

p. 134 “Presidents don’t control the economy but they sure try.”

p.162. 'When the Funds rate fell to zero in 2008 the Fed turned to quantitative easing: buying bonds to push down long-term interest rates.  Quantitative easing has unpredictable political and economic consequences.”

p.198. "The Congressional Bud Off thinks a dollar spent by the federal government on a jet fighter or a park ranger will ultimately generate an estimated $1 to $2.50 of total activity, whereas a dollar of tax cuts will generate between $0.50 & $1.70."

 P.209 "Governments sometimes use fiscal stimulus - that is, a deliberate increase in the deficit - to boost a weak economy.  This is usually unnecessary, unless the Fed is unable to do the job because it has already cut interest rates to zero."