After reading the "Dems win" thread, and after sifting through all the Clinton lover's garbage, I thought I would do a tad bit of research. In 1992, the Unemployment rate was a whopping 7.5%. Clinton is inaugerated (sp?) in 93. Here are the next 8 years worth of rates: 93: 6.9 94: 6.1 95: 5.6 96: 5.4 97: 4.9 98: 4.5 99: 4.2 00: 4.0 Average: 5.2 Bush comes into office in 01 - here are his years so far: 01: 4.7 02: 5.8 03: 6.0 Current month: 5.6 Average: 5.7 Now, here's where it gets interesting: Clinton's first four years in office averaged a 6.0% unemployment. Bush's first three years (plus current January trends) show a 5.7%. As many have said, we have been in a "jobless" recovery for about nine months now, and history shows that economic recoveries are usually jobless for 12 - 15 months, while business are becoming more confident in the turn-around. We can probably estimate that 2004 unemployment numbers will either stay at the 5.6% mark, or drop a few tenths, to maybe 5.4% or so. Look at the first three years of Clinton's reign! A 6.0% average? Holy Jesus! What did he have to deal with? I'll concede that he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., but the EXACT SAME can be said of Bush. The economy tankes 6 months after GW Bush came into office, and no matter how corrupt you think the man is, it is impossible to turn a booming economy around in 6 months. Only an idiot would not admit that the economy was sick when Clinton left, but not showing symptoms. So, now we've got Bush, who inherits a diseased economy, about 6 months after the .com bubble pops. 9 months into his terms, 9/11 happens. During his first two years, we saw Enron, Worldcom, Kmart, and Tycho fall. We saw every major aircarrier crippled. We saw a world-wide SARS threat, and Mad Cow. We attacked Arghanistan, and invaded Iraq. Yet, with all this crap, Bush still managed to tailor an ecnomic plan that has allowed for a 5.7% unemployment rate during his term so far. I just don't understand what you Clinton lovers are saying. I guess you just hate Bush so much, that you'll ignore any good that comes of him. Can anyone explain what I'm not seeing here with these numbers? All you dems and libs are so damn smart, explain to me what I'm missing here. Tell me why my analysis of this situation is wrong, and why Clinton did a better job in his first three years in office. Thanks.