Actually, you have not posted links to your experts. And, as stated, the NY Times is ostensibly on YOUR side.
So then, the Clinton economic boom was due to Reaganomics according to you? Nothing to do with the dot com bubble?
Very interesting. If that's the case, why is it bad again?
Actually you may have answered your own question. The Clinton boom can be attributed to the dotcom boom and subsequent bust, the over use of supply side stimulus inevitably leads to wild swings that benefit the folks at the top with devastating affects for the middle and lower ranges of income. I am not saying that supply side is inherently wrong, just that to rely on that as an economic policy is wrong-headed.