The Clinton years were great for the finances of the goose household.

The president has very little control or effect over the economy despite claims of responsibility for good times or blame for the bad.

I'm going to say the biggest drags on the U.S. economy over the last 20 years has been caused by the policies of unchecked financial institutions and a 14 year military intervention (with no end in sight) in the Middle East.

Now, one could question whether the decisions made by the president and (mainly) the legislative branch of of federal government in reaction to incidents added to the financial strain these put on the economy. But I would still maintain that decisions made by business and financial executives have a more dramatic effect on the economy. Especially when they are unchecked, unchallenged, and not regulated.

Just Fred wrote:

But I would still maintain that decisions made by business and financial executives have a more dramatic effect on the economy. Especially when they are unchecked, unchallenged, and not regulated.

I would agree, rongone.  Maybe time to re-evaluate the successes and short-falls of the 35 years of "Reaganonmics" we've been traveling down since the early 80's.
 

 
I am going to be a bit of a contrarian here in the sense that rather than placing the blame on the businesses and financial institution, the blame really belongs with any regulations and policies that were put in place to do whatever damage you believe they have done. ALL businesses basically are trying their utmost to maximize profits and beat their competition while returning value to their shareholders.