I think the original story is not necessarily talking about the recent specific US government policy, but perhaps the general culture on money matters.
In my college days studying economics, we have a term describing how one dollar spent can generate a few more dollars of business transaction in the society. I think the term was something like propensity to save/spend.
In this particular story, the propensity to save was 0% (or the propensity to spend was 100%.) The US society has been geared/educated/induced/seduced to this spending pattern for a long time. Alan Greenspan's low interest policy certainly played a very role in substaining the spendings. I think I read somewhere that American collectively spend more than they earn, thus the propensity to spend is >100%.
This kind of spending pattern certainly generated a lot more business volume. But the whole system may also more fragile to shocks. If the society's propensity to save is a high, in theory it has buffers to absord the shocks.
But in reality I am not sure that's completely true. Maybe the psychology/culture taht generated the saving in the first place would cause people to save even more in the event of an economic shock. Thus the business contraction the same as the "spend-all" society.
BTW I don't think Obama is the Rich Touist. The people who lend to Obama, like the Chinese & Japanese & Middle Easterners are the Rich Touists. The lending is in the form of buying US treasury bills, etc...
(But are these lendings really lendings? When there is no real alternative to store the surplus cash or trade gains, all the Chinese, Japanese, Middle East money can only go back to the US treasury and become perpetual lendings. A perpetual lending is almost the same as equity injection.)