Your analyses are somewhat simplistic. You are basically crediting the president with what happens during his administration regardless of whether he has a friendly Congress or not, and regardless of whether policies were put in place before he took office that created the bubble. Reagan did not have a friendly Congress. And while he was able to reduce taxes on the wealthy from ridiculous levels to more reasonable levels, he was unable to get Congress to cut spending, and Congress increased taxes on the middle class. GWB was more a victim of Clinton's policies than his own incompetence. The repeal of Glass-Steagal made the 2008 collapse an inevitability. The 2008 crash was not a failure of supply-side economics, it was a failure of gov't to recognize where regulations were needed. I don't disagree that taxes should be higher than they are right now. But gov't should be smaller and limited to the things that states and smaller governments (and individuals) cannot do for themselves. And gov't spending should be looked at as an investment in our future, not in the current economy. If the gov't takes care of the infrastructure, education, and energy supply, and does some basic regulating of industries (from banking to manufacturing to brokerages), the economy will take care of itself. Short-term investments generally lead to long-term problems. What if the church doesn't perform good works? What if it performs bad works, or no works? What if it just spends money on itself? What if the church leader sends his wife on expensive vacations and pays people to be lazy?