I've seen liberals try to make the assertion that Obama's economic recovery was better than Reagan's. Except for the Fed fueled stock market rise under Obama, Reagan's economic growth and recovery was superior to Obama's in every way.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/...ight-charts-2/

President Barack Obama will deliver his final State of the Union address tonight, a venue he has often used to highlight the economy’s progress since the 2007-09 recession. Here’s a look at how the economy has fared, from a number of vantage points, during Mr. Obama’s presidency and that of his predecessors.
Mr. Obama entered office after the economy had been in recession for more than a year. Although the economy has since added enough jobs to climb out of that hole, the job creation during his presidency has been far below that seen during the long booms presided over by presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Stocks also have improved since the 2007-09 recession, but both Messrs. Clinton and Bush faced the beginning of major market declines during year eight of their presidencies and Mr. Reagan saw a major crash in 1987. Markets have an alarming tendency to lose ground at the end of presidencies.
Consumer confidence has lagged for most of Mr Obama’s term, though it has climbed steadily in recent years as the economy’s improvement has become more broad-based. Confidence is higher now than it was at the same point of Mr. Bush’s presidency, but not by much.
Gas prices soared during the middle years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, but more recently have fallen to levels last seen during the recession and in the early years of Mr. Bush’s first term. By contrast, gas prices were mostly stable during the presidencies of Messrs. Clinton and Reagan. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation because many consumers view gasoline prices as an inflation barometer, and it would be confusing to adjust an inflation barometer for inflation.)
Although the number of jobs has climbed under Mr. Obama, household incomes have yet to show similar improvement. As of 2014, the income of the median household, adjusted for inflation, was still down from where it was when he entered office. By contrast, median household incomes improved about 12% during the presidencies of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Clinton.
Politicians and economists alike have increasingly drawn attention to the labor-force participation rate—that is, the share of people who either have a job or are actively looking for work. Overall, the labor-force participation rate has declined primarily due to retirements and to young people spending longer in school. But even among people ages 25 to 54—a range when people have typically finished schooling but are not yet ready to consider retirement—labor-force participation has been in decline.
When Mr. Reagan was president, the share of women working was rapidly increasing, and this trend continued into the first term of Mr. Clinton’s presidency. But by the time Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama became president, the participation of women in the workforce had leveled off and begun to decline.
But for men, the labor-force participation rate has been gradually grinding lower during the last four two-term presidencies. This speaks to an important observation about the economy: Many of its major changes happen very slowly over decades and are driven by forces beyond a president’s control.
Presidents get a large share of the blame when the economy declines (and claim a large share of the credit for any improvement) but many of the forces shaping their presidencies are set in motion long before they take office. They may have much less ability to shift these outcomes than many people who work in politics like to believe.