Well no. It's not "ridiculous".
No need for that, I was already aware the you would never recognize how ridiculous your line of reasoning was.
It's the President that sets policy and signs bills into law. "The Democrats in congress" meme is the ridiculous one.
Learn how to read will you , I said Democrats in WASHINGTON before 2009, not "The Democrats in congress" ....
And essentially we've got a government crafted such that the "minority" has a good deal of power.
Reagan initiated supply side economics in the 80s. He cut the top tax rates, cut regulations across the board, broke the air traffic controller union (and basically drastically reduced the power of labor), spent wildly on expensively and useless military programs (like SDI) oversaw huge deficits and several financial cataclysms that required huge bailouts. Before leaving office he RAISED taxes on the poor and the middle class. He brought in brand spanking new taxes on TIPS and unemployment insurance. This is the history.
And while Vice President Bush was fiscally wiser, his SON Neil Bush oversaw one of the worst bank failures in history, Silverado savings and loan. It wasn't until President Clinton was elected that some of that got cleaned up. President Clinton is not entirely innocent, however, as he did sign into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed a major component of the Glass-Steagall act that separated financials and commercial banks. But he was able to raise the tax rates a bit on the top earners and bring down the deficit. That's in addition to essentially creating the telecommunications infrastructure and advancing the Information technology sector in this country.
Enter George W. Bush, who cut top rates, defunded regulators, looked the other way at the Enron/Anderson debacle, presided over a loss of our manufacturing base, started 2 very expensive wars, put into place new entitlements with no way to pay for them and left office in the midst of yet another conservative engineered financial cataclysm requiring massive tax payer bailouts. This took two terms to do. Generally it's much easier to destroy than rebuild. And rebuilding is what President Obama engaged in and in the face of historic obstruction.
Conservative policy has always been ruinous in this country.
So in nutshell your thesis seems to be that all economics problems from now until the end of time are the fault of policies implemented by Reagan and Bush II, any economic successes of course will be credited to whatever Democrat is the flavor of the month (currently President Obama) and that no Democratic President need ever take responsibility for structural issues within the economy since Reagan and Bush basically made them unfixable. It's telling that you completely ignore monetary policy during the periods you attempt to dissect it's as if you don't recognize the part that monetary policy plays in our economy, you also make no mention of what the Democrats were doing during those two Presidencies it's as if they didn't exist in Washington at all.
We've had 7 years of "progressive" economic and monetary policy and from the perspective of the average American the economy sucks (spare me the stats cherry picking, you can do it, I can do it, but unless you live under a rock (or in Washington D.C.) you know as well as I do the average American is struggling to tread water).
One question, how many terms in office will it take for President Obama to "fix" all the economic problems and return us to the growth rate, job growth and general prosperity we enjoyed say in the mid to late 1980's? will be 5 terms be enough? how about 10?
Take your time and think it through Amigo...
