See, but that's the thing... that's what he does for a living. Why do you think you have a better grasp on economics than he does? No, you thought Reagan should get credit for Clinton's economic successes and his balanced budget. That's just plain wrong. No one disputed it does take years for certain effects on the economy, but other things have immediate or near-term effects. Saying "it takes around 11 years" is an unfounded blanket statement you pulled out of thin air. And as far as "if our economy worked faster" stuff... sure, but it doesn't. It's the reality of it. That's like saying water is wet. If you read the finance article, you'd see how the GOP painted their campaign. Slow, steady, and stable wins the race, not some instant band-aid fix that would cause the economy to continue to 'rubber-band' back and forth between feast and famine. And if you still believe your 11 year malarkey, we're going to be in this dip a LONG time no matter what Obama or anyone does, so you're still not going to be happy. It's a lose-lose no matter how YOU want to paint it because it suits your agenda like that.