You're looking over the entire term, when in the beginning of his term you faced the biggest economic crisis in decades.
And unlike our current administration he made the difficult and painful decisions, letting Volker raise interest rates, that benefited the country in the long-run. Obama is just delaying the inevitable with sugar rush stimulus.
And again, everyone who talks about the main benefits of tax-cuts going to the upper quintile never address the fact that before that the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Even the most left-wing government we've had in 40 years recognizes how utterly counter-productive that is.
Clinton "erasing" Reagan's debt is a non-sequitur and doesn't really mean anything. Plus, you had a Republican Congress that passed things like welfare reform (it takes two to tango), and actually demanded that certain debt be retired, which Clinton resisted initially. But in any event, I'm not a Clinton basher, and on the whole he was pretty good, but more of steward than anything else, the evidence of which is that he did not, and with the exception of his healthcare plan, never purported to seek any major reversals of economic policy from the 1980s, just tweaks really. (For example, he, and the Democratic Congress, raised the top marginal income tax rate by 2.5% to 37.5%, Bush then lowered it to 35%).
If you think that the Soviet Union would have fallen if Carter or Mondale were President, you're out of your mind. I never said Reagan did anything single-handedly, but to claim he had nothing to do with it is just wrong.
Finally, let's show that some of your factual assertions are demonstrably false:
Home ownership rates in the 80's were higher than they were in the 70s. They more or less stayed flat in the 90s.My link
Crime rate fell then rose to about the same level as it started in 1980.
And even so, the crime rate has virtually nothing to do with who is the President at any particular time.