Yeah, but that happened with the other party controlling the purse strings, in both cases, who were voted in as a reaction to those administrations with financial mandates.
Both Clinton and Obama inherited a recession from their Republican predecessors, and were punished for the unforgivable sin of responding appropriately.
By that logic did Bush inherit the dot-com crash from Clinton? I think you'd like to make the world fit neatly into ideological views. The boom-bust cycle of the US economy is pretty nuts when you step back and take it all in. Often the federal policies and bank regulations, to the extent they drive 'irrational exuberance', seldom reach their zenith and nadir all within one administration. The subprime mortgage crisis being a good example.
If you don't think it's possible to make the world fit neatly into ideological views, then I don't understand your former comment where you appear to give credit for the deficit reduction under Clinton and Obama to the Republicans.
Looks like the ideal for deficit control is to have a democratic president and republican control of both houses of Congress. Unified government by either party leads to less constraint on spending.
If Democrats make up half the team that you claim is most effective at limiting deficits, it would seem to me to be difficult to sustain the argument that Democrats don't care about them.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fac...