The economy too!  Not just the stock market...

• The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

  That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Is History siding with Obama's Plan?
 

 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php  Excerpt from article: "Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year."... 
 
**Hence the reason why the stock market performs better, because more people across all classes are benefiting from an increase income; as such, there is an increase in spending (which is reflected in the bottom line of public companies' annual performance which is translated to better stock performance), and there is also an increase in the number of investors and money contributed to the investing pool.
Refer to Jeremy Siegel's article for additional info on stock market performance under the two administrations: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/3022
 
..."Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)"...  

In 2000 (Clinton's last year in office) we had a record budget surplus of $230 Billion: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

The Republicans wanted to use this money to cut taxes, but Clinton was against this because it would only benefit a few (the top 5%) and he felt there were smarter ways to spend this money: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/22/clinton.and.gop.radio/

Now in 2008 (Bush's last year in office): we have a record budget deficit of $389 Billion: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_go_co/budget_deficit

Here is a budget deficit/surplus chart from 1963 thru 2003: http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

For some strange reason people are under the impression that our economy performed best during the Reagan administration, which is not true - only top 20% of the income earners benefited (the Upper and Middle classes - please note the defeinition/classification of middle class back then is different from today). As a matter of fact the income gap began to widen, in 1981 the top 20% now had 44.4% of the income which was up from 43% in 1969.  Reagan's tax cuts resulted in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - the tax burden was shifted away from the richest 5% to the poorest. That "trickle-down" theory was a bunch of bologna.  The Bush's simply followed suit!

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1  "When Bill Clinton was elected President, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent. His bold, three-part economic strategy focused on three objectives: fiscal discipline, investing in education, health care, science and technology, and opening foreign markets. The January 7, 2000 jobs release provides more evidence that this strategy is worked The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent -- the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row.

For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953.

African American and Hispanic Unemployment Rates Were the Lowest on Record in 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 8.0 percent in 1999 – the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.4 percent in 1999 -- the lowest rate on record. 20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration." 

The current economic downturn is largely due to the sub-prime debacle.  The majority of those risky loans were granted during the Bush Administration.  The unscrupulous behaviors of the rich executives of those Commercial and Investment Banks which issued/packaged/sold/purchased those risky loans and CDOs completed these deals during an administration they knew would tolerate those shameful actions (a great deal of them are Bush’s big business cronies who contributed to his election/re-election campaign).  The executives used the stockholders investments to finance the bulk of those risks, for example take a look at Bear Stearns balance sheet and debt-equity ratio - 97% of those risky loans was financed with shareholders investments into the BS.  The greater the risk the greater the return, this is obviously contingent on whether or not the investment performs well as hoped.  If things went as planned these banks would have made a killing and the homeowners would have paid at least 10X the original cost of the homes by the time they repaid the loan plus the obscene interest. Once the interest on the loans adjusted higher, and the borrowers could no longer afford the monthly payments the banks/investment banks suffered huge losses and there was a rippling affect across the financial markets and the economy on a whole - leading to home foreclosures, job losses...  These mortgage lenders, brokers, bankers... knew what they were getting into because they could have all the necessary info at there disposal in order to make a reasonable decision as to whether or not they should approve those loans - this should have been even more stringent than the routine credit check process for credit cards - but instead they went with the half baked approach to reel people in and to justify those reckless approvals.  By granting those no documents loans or the alternative (equally risky)  schemes they knowingly engaged into agreements that would cost them Huge sums if they failed, but on account of their greed they opted to take the risks because of the supposedly impending Great rewards. Instead of a reward we saw a magnificent collapse.