I (and you) know Clinton and Gingrich created the LONGEST SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH IN US HISTORY (even if Republicans call it a bad thing to excuse Bush destroying it,) but their great economic failure was that real wages grew little. In other words, the middle class disposable income for investment (or savings) did not change much. The mostly illusory middle class benefits were primarily start up stock given them in lieu of wages so, rather than driving the market, they simply lost their shirts when those who have always driven it (i.e. your clients) took their money and ran. I cannot fault them taking profits from an overspeculated market, but doing so after stimulating overspeculation and right before financing the election of someone they knew would bring it all crashing down is less forgivable.

Honestly, I do not get it, because I cannot recall a single occasion since Teddy Roosevelt when any Republican administration actually improved the countrys economy (not even Reagan tripling the deficit with millionaire tax cuts he began desperately reducing after his first year in office.) Yet those most obsessed with increasing their already substantial wealth keep insisting Republicans are good for the economy when they are really just good for the tax rates of people falsely claiming that. You keep comparing Obama to Carter, and there is one way in which that comparison is apt: Both inherited an economic disaster from their Republican predecessor and were expected to fix everything within four years.