• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures

    According to The National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession began in December 2007, lasted 18 months, and ended in June 2009. The last recession that lasted this long  began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982.

    No two recessions are the same. And no two recoveries are going to be exactly the same either … especially when the presidents that preside over them have diametrically opposed philosophies about what government can or should do. But as Ronald Reagan once said: “Shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while?”

    As the chart to the right shows, the stark reality is that the economic recovery under President Barack Obama has been much weaker than the recovery under President Ronald Reagan. At this stage of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen more than three full points, from 10.8% to 7.7%. By contrast, under the Obama recovery unemployment has actually risen almost a half a percent from 9.4% to 9.8%.

    So why was the Reagan Recovery so strong and why is the Obama Recovery so weak?

    These policies reflect the different governing philosophies of these two presidents. In his First Inaugural Address, President Reagan said: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … In the days ahead, I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity.”

    President Obama, however, sees a much larger role for the federal government. As he said on the campaign trail in 2008: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    As the still-unemployment rates shows, even with a recovering economy, President Obama’s wealth-distribution efforts are not good for anybody.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    69 Responses to Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures

    1. LibertyAtStake, Alex says:

      When "diametrically opposed philosophies" produce polar opposite results, I'm pretty sure we have a textbook case study. Hey, maybe that Krugman guy is available to write it.

      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
      "Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

    2. Eric, Glen Cove NY says:

      You can't compare apple and oranges. This is disingenuous. Reagan's shenanigans have had a a far reaching negative effect and today's recession is directly related to his past actions.

      This period was a perfect storm not previously experienced. Zero savings, record deficits, high unemployment, zero equity, maxed out credit cards, spiraling energy and healthcare cost, massive trade deficits, massive national debt, 2 wars and another decade of tax cuts for the wealthy. A recipe for disaster.

      Reagan's actions of slashing taxes, breaking labor and deregulations are directly responsible for todays' financial mess. He tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent, while aggressively increasing defense spending.

      We are still paying for his favors to the rich. That's the kind of wealth redistribution we should really be upset with.

      I will add that Reagan should have been tried for treason for trading with the enemy when he conspired with the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the election to insure his win.

    3. Kevin H, college par says:

      This post and chart is simply false. It is pure lies. Obama admin has far outperformed Reagan admin for first 2 years. It's amazing how you try and manipulate the facts and numbers.

      As I've said before, the author of this post has a very fitting name.

      To look at this in reality, let's look at where things were when the President took over.

      When Reagan took over, unemployment was sitting at 7.5%. 23 months later, it was sitting at 10.8%. And increase of 3.3 points – which was a 44% increase in the rate.

      When Obama took over, unemployment was at 7.7%. 23 months later, it now sits at 9.8% – and increase in 2.1 points – a 27% increase in unemployment rate.

      Those are the simple facts that you cannot argue against. Clearly, Obama has done far better at slowing unemployment than Reagan, nearly twice as well as Reagan.

    4. Pingback: Tweets that mention Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    5. Stone, CO says:

      It's a bit confusing because the colors are reversed, but I figured it out. Pretty impressive (and depressing) difference.

    6. Diana, Detroit says:

      Ronald Reagan had a college degree in economics. He also had years of experience traveling across the U.S. as spokeman for General Electric Corp., He completely understood the concept of American Exceptionalism and the power of unrestrained capitalism. He also understood the evils of big government and taxes.

      Most importantly, he loved this country and took his oath of office very seriously.

      The present occupant of The White House is unwilling and unable to comprehend

      the core principles so well understood by Ronald Reagan that gave us so many years of incredible prosperity!

    7. Thomas A. Coss, Las says:

      A tragedy of this recession, of which there are many, is that the governments arrogant and short-sighted attempts to make everyone feel good about themselves through its manipulation of the housing market. Though technically the recession may be over (in that GDP is positive), it is clear that unemployment will not briskly improve for another two years until an over-produced housing stock is absorbed, in the mean time, it's going to be a slog.

      In the last brief recession of 2001-2002, healthcare was able to play a big role in growing employment, accounting for 56% of job growth through 2006; the healthcare bill assures us that no such relief from healthcare will burden this recovery. Indeed, one of our most robust industries is weakened and confused, while the government continues to stand on the air hose, wondering why the "patient" looks so pale.

      We can be grateful for China's Great Leap Forward of the late 50's which cost the lives of about 36 million of its inhabitants as yet a worse still government imposed tragedy. At least I think we didn't blow things that badly, but then the healthcare bill is not yet fully engaged.

    8. Pat - Helena, MT says:

      When people have money they will spend it. Thus this increases the need for more products and services which in turn requires more people to meet the demand. You don't have to have a college degree to see how this works.

      Love the article

      Thank you

      Deck Staining Tips

    9. Skycall, Sacramento, says:

      The facts don't lie on the Unemployment numbers/percentages. Obama is trying to mico-manage the economy by using static scoring of the economy. He must use dynamic scoring. If you increase the tax rate people will find a way to keep their money. If he would lower tax rates, people will have more money to keep thus will likely spend more. This will increase revenues to the treasury. Also paying people not to work, extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, is very much the wrong thing to do to stimulate the economy. He needs to change the way we pay people on unemployment. After 13 weeks make unemployment benefits a loan not a gift. People will drop off very quickly if that was the case.

    10. Connect the Dots, Oh says:

      obowmao and his Soros minions are surely trying to drive the dollar, and the economy, into the ground.

    11. Robby Ricks says:

      I am no fan of President Obama. I am a big Reagan fan. We did have one of the biggest economic meltdowns in History. I do not feel that the comparison is entirely fair because of the meltdown. Having said that, I would love it if Reagan were in charge.

    12. Owen Gammon, United says:

      Do you really think he is trying to get the country to recover, not me one thing is I think the U.S. is a lot more resilient than he thought. He thought this was going to be a cake walk.

    13. Charles Means, Saint says:

      The current problem, or the problems of the past 40+ years, will not be solved until we recognize the problem.

      We do not have a taxing problem. We have the most progressive tax system in the world (Not something I would brag about). You cannot tell me that we have a tax problem, when 47% of the population doesn't directly pay taxes or even receives money back that they did not contribute. You cannot tell me the rich need to pay more, when the top 50% of wage earners pay 90% of the income tax.

      We have a spending problem. Our government spends more and more money every year, for a shrinking return on investment. When was the last time you heard the government say "This program doesn't work, lets change or get rid of it". Instead, they come up with another program that doesn't work.

      When you increase the spending from 18% of GDP to 25% of GDP and soon to hit 28% of GDP. As an individual, you could not increase your spending like that without additional income coming in. When the government spends, it needs to collect more. They only place to get more money is from the people.

      If you cut spending (all departments across the board) then the government needs less money. If the government needs less money, then they can lower taxes. If the government lowers taxes, everybody benefits.

      Just bring federal spending back down to the 18% range, and most everything else will take care of itself…

    14. Jose, Los Angeles says:

      To Eric, Glen Cove NY;

      You are correct, you can not compare apples to oranges. The honorable Ronald Reagan was a true AMERICAN PATRIOT, and the person currently sleeping in the White House is a socialist puppet hell bent on destroying the Constitution that defines us as a country, a government and a people. If you are willing to rape the Constitution, then you are willing to rape America, and that sir, is UNAMERICAN.

    15. Matthew Fredrickson, says:

      This is quite an interesting article. I do believe you are correct that all recessions are different, and that this one cannot shallowly compared with the one in the early 80s. Here are a few things that I think might be different this time:

      1.) Many macroeconomic factors of employment have changed in the USA since the 80s. A great many more types of American jobs have the ability to move overseas now. This will impact the unemployment rate's recovery, as companies that cut costs in the recession by doing this will probably not bring those jobs back at all, or if they do, it will probably take a LONG time and will likely be a reduced number.

      2.) The nature of this recession has different root causes, I think. Much of this one is caused by financially over leveraged banks, as well as financially over leveraged consumers. Until consumers start unloading debt and the banks and other companies' books finish getting the rot cleaned out, GDP will not recover.

      3.) Just from a GDP numbers perspective, the recession we've just been through lasted longer than the one in the 80s, and the _depth_ was I think a lot deeper (4.1% decline in GDP versus 2.7%). That's almost 50% deeper drop in GDP. I believe it is also more global in nature, so it will be harder for us to bounce back due to strong exports (even if we didn't have such a bad trade deficit).

      As far as the talking points go:

      I think you're right about simplifying legislation, and making states less financially dependent on federal funds.

      I don't think the tax increase on the top bracket is going to be significant enough to make a big difference in GDP or unemployment:

      The highest marginal income tax rates before they were dropped in the early '80s were 70% (That's no joke!!!!) on income earned over $215K.

      The top bracket for 2011 is supposed to be increased from 35% for income over $357K, back to 39.6% (pre 2000 levels).

      Our 4.6% change versus the 20% change (in case of Reagan) makes me think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire aren't going to hurt *that* bad, and in fact, may make _no difference_ depending on how you calculate your Laffer curve.

      Anyways, just my $.02.

    16. Pingback: Knee Injury Recovery | Tips for Runners

    17. kws, memphis says:

      Kevin: you need to actually read the article. The author clearly states that they are measuring unemployment rates after the recessions have ended, not when they started as President.

      Eric should also note that none of the budget negotiations between the Reagan administration and Congress resulted in any of the budget cuts that Reagan campaigned on. That was the real reason behind the deficit increases since the tax cuts brought in more than enough revenue to pay for the rebuilding of the US military after the disastrous Carter administration.

      Given that much of the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan is targeted at debt fueled consumption (increased welfare and unemployment benefits are great benefits to the economy because people spend it all), there will be little in terms of improvement on the unemployment rate. Infrastructure spending at least provides economic resources for years to come, but that was a small fraction of the stimulus package. Many areas that were targeted were also considered at near full employment in the US anyway, so increased spending in those areas often resulted in that capital being spent in other nations. Also, the Obama administration has also failed at what would have been the biggest impact on unemployment: sealing the US border and mass deportations of illegal workers from facilities such as food processing plants, construction sites, etc. which would open up those jobs to US citizens and legal residents.

    18. Pingback: AntiObamaBlog.com » Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures

    19. Brian, Kent says:

      Your whole piece is based on a statement by the NBER, taken as fact, and it may as well be – if they can't decide when a recession (as economists define it) ends, then who can?

      But one has to wonder how the community of professional economist would view the lines of causation draw by an armchair economist. The reason they study the economy is because it is a mysterious and fascinating thing, not because it is simple. It is not an easy thing to prove causation in the social sciences. That is, while you may in fact be right, I am not sure that we may ever know.

      In any case, you create a sense of objectivity, your polemics are well played, and I guess I have to respect your craft.

    20. Pingback: Clearing the Browser Tabs – Pigford Thursday Edition

    21. Greg B Vail AZ says:

      Kevin H:

      Where is the fact based data to support your claims? I am not saying you are wrong, but without links or other facts, your data is your data. Who is to say you are not lying?

    22. Pingback: Tweets that mention Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    23. McRibisBack, DC says:

      "This post and chart is simply false. It is pure lies. Obama admin has far outperformed Reagan admin for first 2 years. It’s amazing how you try and manipulate the facts and numbers."

      How is he manipulating facts and numbers? How is graphing the time from the official end of the recession MORE deceiving that just taking the time that each President was sworn into office? The graph is meant to show post-recession recovery performance. Graphing each President's first 23 months would "manipulate the facts and numbers."

    24. TURTLE, TUCSON AZ. says:

      Go back to CONSTITUTIONAL TAXING and SPENDING problem solved

    25. Gary says:

      Eric, ironically all of your crybaby excuses should have been applied to Pres GW Bush more than Oblamer: "This period was a perfect storm not previously experienced. Zero savings, record deficits, high unemployment, zero equity, maxed out credit cards, spiraling energy and healthcare cost, massive trade deficits, massive national debt, 2 wars and another decade of tax cuts for the wealthy. A recipe for disaster." This would vindicate Bush's actions and remove many of the reasons you libs find him so objectionable. Instead of steering the ship, you libs prefer to lather on the excuses and watch the whole thing go down.

      The whole point is that taking on huge debt (that we cannot afford) has a longer term effect on the economy to drag it down. In a time when debt is too high to begin with, the long term becomes short term and works with other economic forces to extend the recession and keep unemployment high. Throw in some higher taxes (or even threaten with higher taxes) and there's your perfect storm. Welcome to the world of Obama.

    26. JoeBama says:

      Does this take into account the difference in identifying the "unemployed". I'm sure the definition of "unemployed" has changed, just as the definition of what constitutes inflation.

      I suspect the current numbers are a bit more nuanced compared to the data of the 80's.

    27. John Warner; Wiscons says:

      "….Reagan’s shenanigans have had a a far reaching negative effect and today’s recession is directly related to his past actions."

      REPLY: This is totally false. The Reagan tax rate reductions gave America almost 90 months of economic growth; something never seen before in the worlds history of economics. The recession was the direct result of ex-president peanut's Community Reinvestment Act (which Clinton put on steroids) and Freddy Mac and Fannie May giving loans to people who had no, or virtually no, income. Welfare checks do not show "income" …. they show a lack of income. Marxism/Socialism never has and never will work is done using government force being touted as "Compassion."

      Reply:

      "Zero savings" caused by irresponsibility;

      "record deficits" caused by overspending on Social programs;

      "high unemployment" which didn't begin until the Dems took over in '06;

      "spiraling energy costs" because the Dems won't let us collect and utilize our own resources;

      "high health care costs" caused by government interference in the market;

      "massive national debt" caused by overspending by the state and federal Dems;

      "2 wars" the cost of which has been overshadowed by the spending of Obama and the Dems;

      "another decade of tax cuts for the wealthy." They're not tax cuts" but reductions in the tax rate; big difference. The "wealthy" are the ones who create jobs and sign paychecks. "Wealthy" is a relative term and is different for everyone.

      "Reagan’s actions of slashing taxes, breaking labor and deregulations are directly responsible for todays’ financial mess."

      REPLY: No; reducing the tax rate always results in EVERYONE, including the "rich," having more to spend, which means more in everyone's pockets, including the government.

      Your post: FAIL!

    28. Pingback: Morning Bell: Rally for Liu Xiaobo | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    29. Matthew Fredrickson, says:

      Another assumption made in the article that I think may not be correct is that GDP levels (i.e. how economists define what a recession is and its duration) and unemployment levels are going to correlate.

      In cases where industries change (more automation or outsourcing to replace warm bodied jobs in the USA) I don't believe that this assumption is correct.

    30. Matthew Fredrickson, says:

      John Warner:

      "REPLY: No; reducing the tax rate always results in EVERYONE, including the “rich,” having more to spend, which means more in everyone’s pockets, including the government."

      You need to be very careful about making blanket statements tieing governmental tax revenue increases to tax cuts. The idea that tax cuts increase tax revenues is based on what's called the Laffer curve, and, unfortunately, there is only a certain part of the curve where this holds substantially true.

      Now, with regards to what you're saying about getting more money into people's hands, that is correct, although, I think it is generally accepted that the largest effect of this comes from the lower tax brackets rather than the highest one.

    31. Kevin H, colelge par says:

      You can find all unemployment data through the Bureau of Labor Statistics – you can find the last 10 years here – and the drop down boxes at top allow you to plug in different years: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServl

      All found on this page: http://www.bls.gov/cps/ – click on the dinosaur icon to see the historical data.

      That's the biggest issue with this post. It's a terrible comparison. Comparing how Obama's admin has affected the unemployment rate when the recession started more than a year before he took office to the Reagan recession began months after he took office. Seems like they were just trying to find out any way possible to make Reagan's performance in his first two years look better – but it can't be done. That facts and numbers are simple.

      Skycall – you are wrong about unemployment benefits being wrong way to stimulate the economy. Of all the provision that CBO analyzed, including all the bush and obama tax cuts, unemployment was the #1 was to stimulate the economy. By far, the biggest bang for the buck. Also, you should know, you can't get unemployment unless you put into it. So basically, it is a loan getting repaid back to those who have put into it. It is easily the biggest stimulus of all options – these people spend it right away.

      Warner – record deficits are diretly tied to 3 things (outside of the recession) – Bush tax cuts, unpaid for wars and the 2003 medicare part d package. Those are the big 3.

    32. Lloyd Revalee; KCMO says:

      We have been spending and giving away money to foreign countries since the Truman Doctrine & The Marshall Plan, and should have known that we would have to "pay the piper" conner or later. It looks like "later' is now.

      The White House, Congress, and the media still lie to the public about what is actually going on. For example: They all say the big question before the Congress is whether they should raise taxes; give a big tax break to the rich, or reduce taxes only for the lower class. Actually, the thing that the general public is concerned about, is leaving the tax rate right where it is now. Thst is not raising or lowering taxes.

      Whenever the Democrats talk about spending, it all the fault of the previous administrations, Republican, who caused the problem. Yet, the Democrats spent more money in the first three months of the Obama administration than we spent on the wars. And no one seems to know where all the so called stimulus money went. It certainly didn't help any of those homeowners having trouble with their mortgages. Those holding mortgages were bailed out, and they take over the property if the mortgagees cannot make their payments.

    33. gene Alaska says:

      I lived in California when Reagan was elected Governor the state was bankrupt. He turned it around. I was in Calif when he was elected President. The unemployment rate was OVER 10% The interest Rates were at 14%, Inflation was in the double digits. 2 years later all of these had dropped dramatically. Unemployment was DOWN 3.3%. Where these lefties get that it went up are reading there info backwards. But everyone knows when a leftie opens his mouth or types He is lying.Reagan turned things around and the economy boomed for 30 years untill the lefties took over again. This deprection was caused by the Democrats. George W warned congress 9 times in 8 years about Freddie and Fannie and they ignored him.And Obama was pushing the lefts agenda as fast as he could.

    34. S.A Cohan, Connectic says:

      Im not sure how anyone can defend Obama's policies which every day intentionally cripple the America as we knew it IE.When Ronald Reagan was residing in the oval office. Obama hates this country and what it stands for whereas Reagan loved this country and what it meant to him. That is why we had the most prosperous era when the greatest president of our lifetime was in office.

    35. John - Detroit, MI says:

      Would someone wake Eric, Glen Cove NY from his dream about President Reagan being responsible for today's financial mess.

      President Clinton and Barney Frank are the main culprits responsible for this financial mess.

    36. Julianne Daily Porta says:

      I am sick of hearing Bush did it, Clinton did it, Reagan did it Put the blame

      where it belongs. In his speech the other obama said he inherited a 3 trillion

      dollar debt I have one question. WHAT IS THE DEBT NOW?

      Quit passing the buck and accept responsibility

    37. JoeBama says:

      Thanks Conn. I just figured the government definition of employment and how they calculate it had been modified as their definition of core inflation.

    38. Ross Presser says:

      ?"President Reagan cut marginal tax rates" (from incredibly high rates). "President Obama is still flirting with the largest tax hike in American history" (which would leave the rates exactly where his predecessor had them, still lower than Reagan cut them to).

      If business did great at the rates Reagan cut them to, how can it do worse at rates lower than that?

    39. Obama FTW says:

      Actually, if you take a look at the employment rate (which just shows levels of unemployment and isn't skewed by the filtering out of discourage workers) you get a different picture. Also remember that in Reagan's time, there actually existed a middle class with actual buying power. The battered 'middle class' we have now doesn't have anywhere near the same buying power to create demand. Reagan's greatest legacy: popularizing union-busting and a less progressive income tax which led us to a wealth/income disparity not seen in America since the Gilded age. The US had the largest wealth/income disparity for any industrialized nation in the world.

      http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/6210/employmenhttp://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5204/employmenhttp://obamaftw.com/

    40. Daniel says:

      The winner for the most ammusing blog ever!

      All the sudden Conservatives and Republicans are concerned about the debt, deficit, unemployment and jobs.

      #1 DEBT

      They added 4.9 trillion to the national debt from 2000-2008(93% off all public law from 2006-2008 came from conservative/republican sponsorship), .6 trillion for the 2009 shared budget, .5 trillion for unfunded military contracts and a 2.5 trillion increase to the national debt by 2013 from both Bush tax cuts that have been public law for 7 years already. That's 8.5 trillion right there. Also, 45% of the current deficit is the Bush tax cuts and defense budgets. Infact, over 8.6 trillion of the 13.6 trillion of the current National Debt went up under Conservative/Republican Presidents and congressional control. Look it up http://www.treasurydirect.gov.

    41. Daniel says:

      #2 MARGINAL TAX RATES

      Every single time in history that any Administration has lowered taxes, Federal Revunue drops right after. Every single time. You can find The Public National Debt along with all other accuired debt history at http://www.treasurydirect.gov.
      You can connect each year with administration and congressional control and find that everytime a conservative/republican president or congress has been in power dropping taxes that federal revenue decreases, and at the same time, public debt increases every single time. You can find marginal tax rate history at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15…. We currently have no sources to offer marginal tax rates to administration to revenue statistics to the public debt standing, so you have to see it for yourself. I gave you every link you need.

    42. Daniel says:

      #3 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

      Everytime a Conservative/Republican President and Congress takes power, unemployment goes up. Throughout history Conservative/Republican power has raised unemployment by an average of 1.6%. Democrat power has lowered unemployment by an average of 2.3%. Just recently Bush increased the unemployment rate by 3.5% during his two terms. Obama has increased the rate by 1.9%. You can find unemployment rate history at http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp. See it for yourself! These unemployment figures line up with the marginal tax rate increase and decrease throughout history that you can find again, at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15….

    43. Daniel says:

      #4 JOB CREATION

      Everytime a Conservative/Republican President and Congress takes power, job creation is lower, every single time. Throughout history Conservative/Republican power has created a total of 39.58 million jobs with an average annual increase of 1.4%. Democrat power has created 69.50 million jobs with an average annual increase of 3.1%. Bush is accountable for over 700,000 jobs losses a month at the end of his second term. Obama has had continued job loss up until this summer. Infact October and Novemer combined accounts for around 275,000 jobs created, partially due to the stimulus. You can find job creation history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_…. These job creation figures also line up with the marginal tax rate increase and decrease throughout history at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15….

    44. Daniel says:

      #5 REAGAN

      Are conservatives still beating that dead horse? The guy was an actor turned politician, come on! Eric and Kevin are exactly right. How can this many people we that unaware of economic and historical facts backed by numerical evidence?

      Well, they do follow Heritage so no big suprise. Unemployment went up under Reagan AFTER he was in office for 18 months. He had the highest unemployment rate in the last 30 plus years. The accountability is on him and I also seem to remember him more then DOUBLING the National Debt. Infact, he had the highest National Debt increase (based on percentage) in history, even a higher percentage then Obama. He did threaten to "carpet bomb" Iran to release americans. Sure, lets kill more people to get our people out, that makes sense. He took the credit from Carter which is truly pathetic. The "trickle down" theory is also pathetic. What jobs have tax cuts created?

      Mr. Conn Carroll,

      You would be fun to debate. I love how you credit Reagan all the way to the end of his 2nd term, and nail Obama for just getting through his 2nd year and using that as comparrison, or using this recession against the one under Reagan. Is Heritage running out of attacks? This was almost as pathetic as your debt graph that you produced not too long ago. I hope more conservatives like you keep debating this way, it makes it so much easier for Democrats!

      Yea, too much ego is a bad thing but nevertheless. I challange one person, including you Mr. Carroll, to dispute any single number or source I gave in the previous comments. Infact, I dare you. Seriously, give it a shot.

    45. Daniel says:

      John writes-

      "The recession was the direct result of ex-president peanut’s Community Reinvestment Act (which Clinton put on steroids) and Freddy Mac and Fannie May giving loans to people who had no, or virtually no, income"

      -I have heard this so many times. Your not even close to correct. If you want a true "FAIL" you got one coming. All you have to do is ask. Eh, maybe I can destroy that comment in just one small paragraph below.

      Private sector bottom line losses for the Housing Market 2008/2009- 1.69 Trillion

      Fannie and Freddie and all other Lenders subject to C.R.A 2008/2009- 313 Billion

      85% of the Housing Market share from 1999-2009 was Private Sector lending.

      4% of the Housing Market share from 1999-2009 was Lenders under C.R.A

      11% of the Housing Market share from 1999-2009 was G.S.E's(Fannie & Freddie)

      for 14 years of conservative/republican congressional control, 12 years of banking and finance committe chairs, 12 years treasury secretaries and 8 years of Executive branch, not a single bill for Regulatory Reform on the Housing Market passed and you blame one member of congress(Barney Frank) for one stupid quote!?

      Oh, I could do this ALL DAY:)

    46. daryl de mestre says:

      Kevin H "you can't get unemployment unless you put into it" That is true, but your contribution, at the State level, only holds good for 26 weeks. After that Uncle Sam takes care of your "unemployment benefits" till whenever, except that this time it should be more correctly called welfare. "Money for nothing, chicks for free" ??? I guess Mark Knoffler was well ahead of the game with his pop hit, from out of the archives.

    47. Homer N. Jethro; Gra says:

      Greetings Daniel,

      Do your best, all day, but remember many people, possibly a majority would rather have our "messy" freedoms than a society "well regulated" by government, this one or any other.

    48. Bill Bagley, Preston says:

      While a lifelong Republican, I have to say that both major parties and not a few independents are complicit in this mess. Rather than argue who is at fault, why don't all parties get busy coming up with solutions instead of the useless blame game? One solution that is clear but a tough sell is that the government must cut spending. When the average American hears of even more pork attached to nearly every bill Congress debates and passes, and massive waste on many of those pet projects, he or she gets very upset. The other group of citizens that gets upset is the group of tax payers footing the bill for the masses on the dole from our give-away government (the same masses who pay little to no taxes. No one, it seems, has the courage to stop the out-of-control spending and the result is an ever-increasing pack of people who feel entitled to what they are given and want still more.

      I feel terribly sorry for those who want to work but cannot find a job, but I feel no sympathy for those who take and take unemployment benefits (up to 99 weeks and possibly more) and are happy to do so. While they carry personal responsiblity for their laziness, a heavier responsibility has to be laid at the feet of our elected officials, of whatever political stripe, who created this mess over decades and continue to spend OUR money wildly and shamelessly. Yes, many of us pay our fair share of taxes and we should do so, but we should also expect wise decisions to be made about how those monies are used for US. Therein lies the issue- we're not seeing wisdom displayed by our elected leaders. Instead they keep making the same mistakes of previous adminstrations, to the point that, after a while, it LOOKS intentional even if they are sincerely trying to do something positive! Positive change is a phrase that is essentially gone from the American vocabulary and its absence is stark during this protracted downturn. Will there ever be an upturn? Most likely not. Why? Partly because every candidate for high office says the same thing every election year- "I'm going to help rein in government spending" but then does nothing. Rhetoric and empty promises do not fix problems. In fact, they exacerbate the problems as citizens get their hopes up only to have them dashed one or two years in to any President's term.

      It is now at a point where few Americans even bother to hope, and as a result the attitudes about the economy are depressingly negative no matter what the numbers say on any chart or spouted to the media by any so-called economic expert. And most of us certainly do not believe politicians anymore, if some of us ever did!

    49. Daniel says:

      Homer,

      you stated-

      "Do your best, all day, but remember many people, possibly a majority would rather have our “messy” freedoms than a society “well regulated” by government, this one or any other."

      -Nothing President Obama has done, regulates society in anyway, shape or form. If your speaking in reference to private sector regulation, sure he has made some changes, that we should have had over 30 years ago. That is if you are using reference to President Obama.

      -No, I dont think the majority of people want more "messy" freedoms like complete private sector meltdowns that had little to no rules or "regulation". I know Conservatives seem to want constant "messy" freedoms that always seem to effect the middle-class. Sometimes, having rules does matter.

    50. Daniel says:

      Bill,

      you stated-

      "While a lifelong Republican, I have to say that both major parties and not a few independents are complicit in this mess. Rather than argue who is at fault, why don’t all parties get busy coming up with solutions instead of the useless blame game?"

      -That is a great question for The Heritage Foundation, conservative media and every single conservative out there. Why all the blame with no solutions? Great question!

      you stated-

      "One solution that is clear but a tough sell is that the government must cut spending. When the average American hears of even more pork attached to nearly every bill Congress debates and passes, and massive waste on many of those pet projects, he or she gets very upset."

      -why no mention of the Bush tax cuts, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, cost of the tax cuts, inflated military budgets? Just spending you say, nothing else?

      you stated-

      "The other group of citizens that gets upset is the group of tax payers footing the bill for the masses on the dole from our give-away government (the same masses who pay little to no taxes."

      -Masses? Are you referring to the 47% of americans that lie below qualification to pay high federal income taxes, that receive credits for children. Families that barely make enough money to pay bills, let alone a percentage of their earnings , ya know, people that make between $35,000-$50,000 a year, the middle class. How much do you expect them to pay? They do pay payroll taxes, property taxes, auto taxes, retail taxes, etc. That 47% sure does pay a fair share in taxes and ask any of those people if they have seen any evidence of high-income earners "footing the bill" for them.

      -What "give-away government"? Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, child tax credits, small business tax credits, etc.? "give-away government"- please explain exactly what you are talking about? Oh, and im sure "the tax payers footing the bill" are having such a hard time paying taxes at the lowest rate in history since 1952. I'm sure its extremely hard for them. And im also sure that high income earners have no ability to find loop holes in the tax law, no, that just wouldn't make sense, nor would the capital gain taxes have any consideration with high income earners. Also, these high income earners create jobs right? All that "trickle down" has been so productive for the last 8 years right?

    51. Daniel says:

      Bill,

      you stated-

      "No one, it seems, has the courage to stop the out-of-control spending and the result is an ever-increasing pack of people who feel entitled to what they are given and want still more."

      -That is true. Extremely high defense budgets that take over 30% of the current deficits, the Bush tax cuts that have already depleted 1.9 trillion from Federal Revenue, unregulated private sectors that have cost us over a trillion to bailout with tax payer money. 85% of the housing market that was private sector lending that the government never touched, that was bailed out with tax payers money. Hey, im right with you on "out of control spending"

      -It seems that largest entitlement of all time, is the wealthy sticking out hands asking for even more tax breaks and loopholes to avoid even paying there fair share of taxes.

      you stated-

      "I feel terribly sorry for those who want to work but cannot find a job, but I feel no sympathy for those who take and take unemployment benefits (up to 99 weeks and possibly more) and are happy to do so. While they carry personal responsiblity for their laziness,"

      -so the recession had nothing to do with them not being able to find a job? The salary suggested that was not enough to provide them with even gas and lunch money had nothing to do with it? Your speaking for alot of people. They are "happy ot do so" Really? Im sure they are "happy" to live off $250-$300 a week because that is enough to cover mortgage/rent, auto insurance, health insurance, food, auto payments, etc. Yea, im sure they are not out trying to find a job because unemployment payments cover everything under the sun. Interesting fact-Unemployment benefits payed out from 2003-2010 make up for just 5.5% of the actual money taken out of Federal Revenue for both Bush tax cuts. And even worse, you think they are all lazy. Absolutism like that shows a true lack of credibility on your part.

    52. Daniel says:

      Bill,

      you stated

      "a heavier responsibility has to be laid at the feet of our elected officials, of whatever political stripe, who created this mess over decades and continue to spend OUR money wildly and shamelessly. Yes, many of us pay our fair share of taxes and we should do so, but we should also expect wise decisions to be made about how those monies are used for US."

      -Yes, both parties are at fault, just be sure to include the defense budget spending and cost of both Bush tax cuts and the cost of bailing out unregulated private sectors. Other then that, you are right on point!

      you stated-

      "Therein lies the issue- we’re not seeing wisdom displayed by our elected leaders. Instead they keep making the same mistakes of previous adminstrations, to the point that, after a while, it LOOKS intentional even if they are sincerely trying to do something positive!"

      -EXCELLENT POINT. no sarcasm in this response, that truly was an excellent point. Try explaining this-("making the same mistakes of previous adminstrations") to The Heritage Foundation, any of its followers, conservative media and conservatives all together. Bush and Reagan are constantly left out for blame amongst most if not all conservatives out there.

      you stated-

      "Positive change is a phrase that is essentially gone from the American vocabulary and its absence is stark during this protracted downturn. Will there ever be an upturn? Most likely not. Why? Partly because every candidate for high office says the same thing every election year- “I’m going to help rein in government spending” but then does nothing. Rhetoric and empty promises do not fix problems. In fact, they exacerbate the problems as citizens get their hopes up only to have them dashed one or two years in to any President’s term."

      -you see, you keep talking about government spending and nothing else. Your comment is becoming more and more one-sided. No mention of tax cuts for the wealthy, defense spending, unregulated private sectors that were bailed out. Pardon me, if you would have included those items.

      you stated-

      "It is now at a point where few Americans even bother to hope, and as a result the attitudes about the economy are depressingly negative no matter what the numbers say on any chart or spouted to the media by any so-called economic expert. And most of us certainly do not believe politicians anymore, if some of us ever did!"

      -good point and bad point. Yes, people are just giving up but the way certain people(namely conseratives) are constantly blocking any and all credit for any single thing President Obama has done is part of the problem. For example, was the stimulus a complete failure as they say? Do they wish to completely repeal Healthcare reform, did they really want the banks and auto industries to fail? Nothing is telling me anything different. It's all "trickle down" and expensive wars.

      -Pardon the sarcasm and some of my comments, just want to make sure you include the major factors for our current economic and social problems.

    53. Kuntakinte says:

      They should probebly decrease the number of "jobs created" by the Obama administration with the number of goverment personal they hired on top of the existing amount.

    54. Daniel says:

      Bill,

      you stated-

      “While a lifelong Republican, I have to say that both major parties and not a few independents are complicit in this mess. Rather than argue who is at fault, why don’t all parties get busy coming up with solutions instead of the useless blame game?”

      -That is a great question for The Heritage Foundation, conservative media and every single conservative out there. Why all the blame with no solutions? Great question!

      you stated-

      “One solution that is clear but a tough sell is that the government must cut spending. When the average American hears of even more pork attached to nearly every bill Congress debates and passes, and massive waste on many of those pet projects, he or she gets very upset.”

      -why no mention of the Bush tax cuts, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, cost of the tax cuts, inflated military budgets? Just spending you say, nothing else?

      you stated-

      “The other group of citizens that gets upset is the group of tax payers footing the bill for the masses on the dole from our give-away government (the same masses who pay little to no taxes.”

      -Masses? Are you referring to the 47% of americans that lie below qualification to pay high federal income taxes, that receive credits for children. Families that barely make enough money to pay bills, let alone a percentage of their earnings , ya know, people that make between $35,000-$50,000 a year, the middle class. How much do you expect them to pay? They do pay payroll taxes, property taxes, auto taxes, retail taxes, etc. That 47% sure does pay a fair share in taxes and ask any of those people if they have seen any evidence of high-income earners “footing the bill” for them.

      -What “give-away government”? Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, child tax credits, small business tax credits, etc.? “give-away government”- please explain exactly what you are talking about? Oh, and im sure “the tax payers footing the bill” are having such a hard time paying taxes at the lowest rate in history since 1952. I’m sure its extremely hard for them. And im also sure that high income earners have no ability to find loop holes in the tax law, no, that just wouldn’t make sense, nor would the capital gain taxes have any consideration with high income earners. Also, these high income earners create jobs right? All that “trickle down” has been so productive for the last 8 years right?

    55. Daniel says:

      Bill,

      you stated-

      “No one, it seems, has the courage to stop the out-of-control spending and the result is an ever-increasing pack of people who feel entitled to what they are given and want still more.”

      -That is true. Extremely high defense budgets that take over 30% of the current deficits, the Bush tax cuts that have already depleted 1.9 trillion from Federal Revenue, unregulated private sectors that have cost us over a trillion to bailout with tax payer money. 85% of the housing market that was private sector lending that the government never touched, that was bailed out with tax payers money. Hey, im right with you on “out of control spending”

      -It seems that largest entitlement of all time, is the wealthy sticking out hands asking for even more tax breaks and loopholes to avoid even paying there fair share of taxes.

      you stated-

      “I feel terribly sorry for those who want to work but cannot find a job, but I feel no sympathy for those who take and take unemployment benefits (up to 99 weeks and possibly more) and are happy to do so. While they carry personal responsiblity for their laziness,”

      -so the recession had nothing to do with them not being able to find a job? The salary suggested that was not enough to provide them with even gas and lunch money had nothing to do with it? Your speaking for alot of people. They are “happy ot do so” Really? Im sure they are “happy” to live off $250-$300 a week because that is enough to cover mortgage/rent, auto insurance, health insurance, food, auto payments, etc. Yea, im sure they are not out trying to find a job because unemployment payments cover everything under the sun. Interesting fact-Unemployment benefits payed out from 2003-2010 make up for just 5.5% of the actual money taken out of Federal Revenue for both Bush tax cuts. And even worse, you think they are all lazy. Absolutism like that shows a true lack of credibility on your part.

    56. Daniel says:

      Bill,

      you stated

      “a heavier responsibility has to be laid at the feet of our elected officials, of whatever political stripe, who created this mess over decades and continue to spend OUR money wildly and shamelessly. Yes, many of us pay our fair share of taxes and we should do so, but we should also expect wise decisions to be made about how those monies are used for US.”

      -Yes, both parties are at fault, just be sure to include the defense budget spending and cost of both Bush tax cuts and the cost of bailing out unregulated private sectors. Other then that, you are right on point!

      you stated-

      “Therein lies the issue- we’re not seeing wisdom displayed by our elected leaders. Instead they keep making the same mistakes of previous adminstrations, to the point that, after a while, it LOOKS intentional even if they are sincerely trying to do something positive!”

      -EXCELLENT POINT. no sarcasm in this response, that truly was an excellent point. Try explaining this-(“making the same mistakes of previous adminstrations”) to The Heritage Foundation, any of its followers, conservative media and conservatives all together. Bush and Reagan are constantly left out for blame amongst most if not all conservatives out there.

      you stated-

      “Positive change is a phrase that is essentially gone from the American vocabulary and its absence is stark during this protracted downturn. Will there ever be an upturn? Most likely not. Why? Partly because every candidate for high office says the same thing every election year- “I’m going to help rein in government spending” but then does nothing. Rhetoric and empty promises do not fix problems. In fact, they exacerbate the problems as citizens get their hopes up only to have them dashed one or two years in to any President’s term.”

      -you see, you keep talking about government spending and nothing else. Your comment is becoming more and more one-sided. No mention of tax cuts for the wealthy, defense spending, unregulated private sectors that were bailed out. Pardon me, if you would have included those items.

      you stated-

      “It is now at a point where few Americans even bother to hope, and as a result the attitudes about the economy are depressingly negative no matter what the numbers say on any chart or spouted to the media by any so-called economic expert. And most of us certainly do not believe politicians anymore, if some of us ever did!”

      -good point and bad point. Yes, people are just giving up but the way certain people(namely conseratives) are constantly blocking any and all credit for any single thing President Obama has done is part of the problem. For example, was the stimulus a complete failure as they say? Do they wish to completely repeal Healthcare reform, did they really want the banks and auto industries to fail? Nothing is telling me anything different. It’s all “trickle down” and expensive wars.

      -Pardon the sarcasm and some of my comments, just want to make sure you include the major factors for our current economic and social problems.

    57. Kirk, Arlington, VA says:

      Nonsense. Obama was in office for four months of the 18 months you attribute to the "Obama Recovery". What a pack of lies – shame on you.

      Face it, the Reagan recession STARTED four months after he got into office. The GW Bush recession ENDED four months after Obama took over. And the stock market has been soaring. What, no mention of that? I am FAR better off than I was when Obama took office!

    58. Daniel says:

      Kuntakinte,

      you stated-
      "They should probebly decrease the number of “jobs created” by the Obama administration with the number of goverment personal they hired on top of the existing amount."

      -every single one of the 250,000 jobs created in oct. and nov. 2010 was private sector. Yea, alot of people work for the government too. Are you against people choosing to work for the government? Should all government jobs be stripped away? Go tell that to a man providing for his family and see what he thinks.

    59. Bill Bagley, Preston says:

      Daniel- you had a lot of good comments and I commend you for thinking it through, but I need to point out one thing. You seem to feel that for me the "only" solution is less spending. Your exact words were, "just spending, you say." My comment began by saying that less spending is "one" solution. That is a BIG difference. You mention, for example, defense spending. While I believe we need a strong military, even in the defense department there is way too much spending, the legendary $800 screwdrivers and $2,000 toilet seats make the point. All I am saying is that our government wastes WAY too much money in almost every area of spending. The whole issue of entitlements is one (note, I'm saying 'one') area where we spend too much. There are many thousands of people who need financial help, SSI and the like. But there are thousands of others who abuse the system and who do not truly need the money the government gives them. Rather, they take and do not give. I personally know of people in my town who are perfectly healthy, could easily be working at something, but are collecting payments for being "disabled" when, in fact, they are not and never have been disabled. Again, these are just examples, and there are many other areas of American life where solutions to our financial woes can be found, but I zeroed in on spending as one example. I appreciate your kind comments on some of the points I made. I do not have all the answers, nor do you nor does any one person in Congress, but maybe if many citizens like you and me let our elected officials know what we think and what some of our ideas are, we would make some headway. Finally, I'm not totally without hope and the reason I say that is because my hope is not in government or any official or even any great idea that might turn the course of events in favor of long term rebound. Rather, my hope is in the Lord Jesus. My future is as bright as the promises of God and I'm convinced that God is in total control of world, national, local and personal events! I make my comments here only because I am concerned for our country. It is not what I knew growing up. I pray much for America and for our President. He has a tough job to do, and while I disagree with some of his policies and principles, I know he needs prayers more than attacks. The arguing and grandstanding are not helping but hurting. Can America ever be what it once was? I don't know, but I do know God is still on His throne. To quote an old hymnwriter, "America, America- God shed His grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shing sea!" That's what I want for our country and I'll bet you do too! Let me know what you think.

    60. Bobbie says:

      Boy, what a pest that Daniel is.

      Just to bring it to those who question Kevin H's data, it's government data.

      Now, to question the contrast of intelligences? I pick Reagan's!

    61. Gary, South Dakota says:

      I'm about sick and tired of the fighting back and forth.

      Republicans blame the Dem's the Dem's blame the Repub's, all the while one side won't agree to legislation the other side put forth because come election time that will hurt one party or the other.

      Not one of you people give a God damn about "we the people" all you care about is your own policies and wallets. Why do you people raise and spend millions of dollars to get a job that only pays $174,000 a year? Pick me I know, the reason is because of all the "legal" backroom deals you clowns are allowed to make, all the while the Chinese are taking over. Just remember when the country falls, and thanks to people like you it's going to happen, you can't take the than useless money with you.

      All you sob's should be thrown in prison, I just can't wait til "we the people" decide to take to the streets and live by what Thomas Jefferson said we should do when the Government gets out of control.

      Keep telling your lies!

    62. Gary, South Dakota says:

      Hello, wake up American politicans! China continues to make trade deals, we continue to throw money away, we give Pakistan billions, they in turn get millions from Iran, thean they go and sign major trade deals with China.

      China continues to build it's country up, roads, schools, buisnesses research and development, China stays out of other nations buisness, we continue to waste away our childrens future, because we throw everybody and their mother in jail, we cut spending on education so we can give Israel $2.8 billion a year, so they can in turn sell our weapons technology to the….yeah you guessed it the Chinese.

      So Mr. Senator, you think you and your buddies on the hill should be worrying about other things other than "don't ask don't tell?" When a Chinese offical says roads need to get fixed, they get fixed, when we Americans say roads need to be fixed, Congress and Senate bicker back and forth and of course nothing gets done.

      It's true politicans in this country never learn from past mistakes, good job guys, America is on it's death bed, but hey let's just go with the status quo.

    63. stephen WV says:

      From the chart, there looks to be a relationship between the extension of unemployment benefits, and the inability of the unemployment rate to improve. I have talked to people on unemployment who say why should I go back to work when I can get about the same amour to not work. When they stop extending benefits, I will go back to work.

    64. stephen WV says:

      Agendas will determine the success of the coming year.

      Government's agenda: Grow government. Downsize the People. Downsize the economy.

      People's agenda: Downsize Government. Grow the people. Grow the Economy.

      Career politician's agenda: Grow spending for reelection. Grow bureaucracy to grow political power.

      People's agenda / Founding Fathers' agenda: Doing what is best for the People and the Nation.

      How can these conflicting agenda's be corrected?

      Elect real people with real careers, like our Founding Fathers, who actually want to do what is best for the people and the nation.

    65. Pingback: CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

    66. Pingback: Ron Reagan Saw Signs of Father's Alzheimer's at White House

    67. Jill-Maine says:

      I'm not better off. I don't know how much longer I will be able to make it. I have a college education, I have been in the same job for 17 years and my pay keeps going down and down. I think they call this "trickle up poverty." Everyone is going to be equally poor.

    68. aaron says:

      Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures the numbers do not add up if you compare them to the US department of labor statics numbers. the chart they provide is wrong according to the usdls has heritage ever corrected this error or defended the numbers!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×