To: TimF who wrote (360792 ) 11/29/2007 7:52:07 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571821 Clinton became president during the early stages of a recovery. Unless he f'ed things up the rate was going to go down. The recovery had already started by the time Clinton was elected. The unemployment rate averaged 7.4% in 1992. In the first six months of 1993, it averaged 7.1%.....hardly a serious recovery.Is the next president going to inherit a mess, Tim? Depends on how you define a mess. Certainly nothing like what Reagan inherited. Not really any unusual mess at all, nothing outside the normal economic cycle, but its possible that the next president will have to deal with a recession at the beginning of his term. (Just like GW did.) As for any striking contrasts, I think you greatly exaggerate it, but striking or not, doesn't change the point I already made - "since growth in manufacturing productivity is a good thing, and is the main reason for a decrease in manufacturing employment, a faster decrease under some presidents than others, is hardly a clear negative mark against them" However it would have been if they had been Dem. presidents, huh? Well let me assure you, the next president will inherit a huge mess as big as Reagan's if not more so. The dollar is barely worth the paper its printed on, the debt load is fast approaching $10 trillion, budget deficits have been the order of the day, the housing market is in the toilet, there is a serious credit crisis and the domestic economy is stinking up the joint. If it weren't for the global boom, we would already be in a serious recession. And Tim, I am sick to death of your pretending everything is fine because it fits your ideology.