Is the President to blame or praise for the economy?

    A "good liberal Portlander" (I miss you Tim) friend of mine and I once had a long conversation regarding whether or not the President of this good country wielded enough influence to truly affect the economy, and therefore was worthy of praise or condemnation when the time came for such judgement.

    Our point and counterpoint at that time revolved around the economic boom surrounding Bill Clinton's Presidency.  We succinctly debated our relevant arguments, but arrived at no satisfatory conclusion, other than, "Probably the President can't affect the economy that much."  We did agree, however, that it was the attitudes of people at any given time that most affected the economy.

    So my question is, why has the media been "dogging" the economy for the past 6 years?

    Admittedly, things were down.  Life was a little more difficult, although I don't recall any families having to eat their young.  The typically ludicrous headlines screamed doom and gloom.

    But what about now?  What about the boom time?  Yes - I said, "Boom Time" and I meant it (don't talk to me of trade deficit - there will ALWAYS be a trade deficit with the American penchant for cheap consumer goods).  Things are great - economically speaking - and that is a fact.  So where's the typically ludicrous headlines screaming glory and praise?