The Daniel Gross article fails to mention several important ways a president effects the economy.

Consumer sentiment is only briefly mentioned at the very end. Let's just say that the author Grossly underestimates the importance of this.

Gross also failed to mention the rising costs of energy (mainly oil) and healthcare. High energy costs are likely to effect our economy very significantly in the next decade or so. The president does have a certain amount of power in these areas. It is really hard to say, but with a Gore administration we may have had universal health care, and would almost certainly have had a stronger energy policy. A Gore administration would have invested in alternative energy and conservation years ago, and gas prices may have been cheaper now as a result. If healthcare costs were lower, people wouldn't be hurting as much.

Gross didn't mention the Iraq war, and what a tremendous distraction and misallocation of our country's resources this has been.

Gross failed to mention the national debt., and how our current president (and congresses) squandered a projected budget surplus by essentially giving it to people who didn't need it. Alan Greenspan warned us multiple times that this amount of debt is going to cause trouble down the road.

While it's true that presidents have less to do with the economy than people think, you can't discuss the economy without looking at the big picture.

You dare to mention the man who, more than anybody, got us into the mess we find ourselves in today. The housing bubble was mainly a result of his policies. He actually recommended that home buyers get ARMs instead of fixed rate mortgages back in 2004 when he had Fed Funds rates at 1%.

Greenspan talks out of both sides of his mouth. He's inclined to be a little more honest and straightforward since he retired, but citing Alan Greenspan on the economy is rather like citing Rumsfeld or Robert McNamara on war policy.