This is one of those lies damn lies and statistics. Using the same statistical reference points Democrats have overwhelmingly spent more on defense budgets (average growth is around 9%) and the Republicans have a negative growth rate this century. The problem with this "statistic" is that it starts on a President's first day in office and ends on their last day. This is a problem because the first year in office is basically a carry-over from the previous Administrations policies. Furthermore, it can take a year or more for Presidential economic policies to be felt broadly. So you really cannot factor this effect with any real clarity. Sure Clinton had some significant growth in the economy during his Presidency, off the back of the Internet bubble, which basically popped and crashed as he was leaving office, so can you blame him for the 2000-2001 economic decline? Maybe, maybe not. If we are counting economic prosperoty as an indicator Reagan had the longest period of growth under any President, but I am guessing you would not call him a success. You can also track the biggest economic growth under Clinton after the Repblicans took control of the House and Congress is actually the body that votes on economic policy.
Economics are way bigger than politics of the Presidency. The factors that move economic cycles would exist under any President using any policy that fits in the US paradigm. Because economics are politicized and implemented based on what the public wants you can rest assured that the cycle will continue no matter the controlling parties. We are right now in a down cycle under a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. The President's party is paying the price due to any other blunders. The winds of change have shifted to the Democrats who will get elected and then run out of office in a few years as the public winds shift in the other direction and 20% of the people that are currently in teh Democratic camp will jump into the Republican camp and this will happen until we are long gone.
