Fixed it for you. Now it's COMPLETELY accurate. The Rats can never give President Reagan credit where credit was due. Not only did they spend the entire 8 years of his presidency denying him credit for his achievements...they might be forced to concede that Clinton skated along on the effects of Reagan's economic policies. They would never allow that to happen.
Economically speaking, though the circumstances are quite different, President Bush faces a similar challenge in cleaning up the mess Clinton left behind as Reagan faced in the aftermath of the Carter fiasco. Menaing during Bush's second term, we should all be doing much better economically.
Economic Policies that were, in fact, so good, that the country still prospered economically for 7 years or so, even after the biggest tax hike in history in '93.
Of course, the tech boom helped the economy along, too, just as it sunk it the economy in '00 and '01.
Reagan had a heck of a mess to clean up, with a recession, runaway inflaction and high unemployment (people today think 6% is bad - they should try double digits). And it wasn't all Jimmy's fault - it's like after the Kennedy tax cut the country's leaders went brain dead on fiscal and monetary policy. Also in fairness to Jimmy, he reversed the Fed's soft money policy by appointing Paul Volker, a hard money Democrat, as Fed Chair. Volker wrung inflation out of the economy while Reagan jump started growth with the tax cut.
Clinton didn't do nearly as much damage, mainly because the Republican Congress that came in 1994 wouldn't let him. This recession was caused in part by the business cycle and in part by the Fed jacking up interest rates to burst the bubble that was created in the stock market. Bush has a lot less ground to cover to get back to strong growth than Reagan did,IMHO.