The Myth of 'Obama the Socialist,' Part II

The Myth of ‘Obama the Socialist,’ Part II

In a few more handy graphs

HAL2010

LGFMay 2012 • Views: 31,489

My previous page on Obama (found here) clearly showed that President Obama has presided over one of the “greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory.”

To hammer home this point, there are a few more pieces of evidence I would like to share with you.

Firstly, consider the graph below (source):

It clearly shows what we already knew, that overall government spending under Obama is going down (though state and local spending is also being slashed).

Secondly, it shows that government spending under G.W. Bush increased dramatically. Where the Tea Party patriots were then we can only speculate about.

In fact, Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office, taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009, and the deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office.

Whilst you let those facts sink in for a while, here is the graph that proves it (source):

And speaking of the national deficit, what caused it?

Well, according to TPM, “The vast bulk of the debt is the result of policies enacted during the Bush administration coupled with automatic increases in federal spending and decreases in tax revenue triggered by the economic downturn.”

Using figures from the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities from May 2011, we see what current policies have caused it. If you’re G.W. Bush, you may want to look away now (source):

To quote Andrew Sullivan:

No administration has reduced aggregate government spending as a precentage of GDP as much as Obama’s in forty years. If you look at the full chart, back to George HW Bush, you reach an inescapable conclusion: the biggest spenders and borrowers are Republicans and the most fiscally conservative presidents have been Democrats.

To claim that President Obama is a “Big Government Socialist,” a “Marxist,” or a “Stealth Commie” may make for a good soundbite, but it’s an outright lie.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.”

Jump to bottom

64 comments

Kragar Thu, May 24, 2012 1:41:14pm

I don't see how any of this addresses the fact we still haven't seen his birth certificate. Plus, have you seen the pixels yet?
///

Logical arguments based on facts are not on the current Conservative "to do" list.

Simply Sarah Thu, May 24, 2012 1:44:05pm

It's very simple. Rhetoric is far more important than substance or actions. So long as you talk about 'smaller government' (Or national defense, natch) and tax cuts, you're golden. Just make sure to cut spending on poor people, because people notice that.

lawhawk Thu, May 24, 2012 1:44:26pm

Great post generally, but I do have quibbles with the third table/graph (causes of national debt as projected to 2019). As per the source:

The numbers, which come from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, assume national policy as of a year ago would be renewed. Thus, they don’t reflect expected peace dividends from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or revised economic growth projections, and it assumes the Bush tax cuts will be renewed in their entirety — something President Obama has vowed will not happen, after he accepted a two-year extension of all the rates late 2010. But they broadly demonstrate that existing debt and projected deficits aren’t largely a consequence of Obama initiatives.

The conclusion makes sense (that debt is piling up due to decisions made before Obama took office. However, the graph assumes that the tax cuts will be renewed in their entirety, rather than sharply adjusted. As it is, the Bush tax cuts would have expired after 12/31/2010 but for Congress and the President extending the cuts further. The 2010 sunset would have resulted in a windfall of revenues and significantly higher taxes for high income earners. It would have significantly reduced the debt figures.

It's also worth keeping in mind that this chart would be the opposite of a CBO chart for the same kind of information, since the CBO bases its figures on the law as it is currently enacted - not how it will likely be extended and/or changed by future Congressional action.

The truth (or the most likely budget scenario) is somewhere between the CBO figure and the chart above.

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 1:48:23pm

Firstly, Thank you Charles!

Secondly, it's utter madness. The sheer audacity of the lies, distortions, obfuscations and smears the President has to endure is incredible.

To me, it in many ways boils down to governance, and here Obama is simply head and shoulders above the competition. the GOP is a joke, their base the very worst from some caricature drawn in The Guardian.

I would like to see just some of the above facts mentioned in one of the debates between Obama and Romney.
Fat chance eh?

RadicalModerate Thu, May 24, 2012 1:48:37pm

re: #3 lawhawk

Great post generally, but I do have quibbles with the third table/graph (causes of national debt as projected to 2019). As per the source:

The conclusion makes sense (that debt is piling up due to decisions made before Obama took office. However, the graph assumes that the tax cuts will be renewed in their entirety, rather than sharply adjusted. As it is, the Bush tax cuts would have expired after 12/31/2010 but for Congress and the President extending the cuts further. The 2010 sunset would have resulted in a windfall of revenues and significantly higher taxes for high income earners. It would have significantly reduced the debt figures.

It's also worth keeping in mind that this chart would be the opposite of a CBO chart for the same kind of information, since the CBO bases its figures on the law as it is currently enacted - not how it will likely be extended and/or changed by future Congressional action.

The truth (or the most likely budget scenario) is somewhere between the CBO figure and the chart above.

The only way that the Bush tax cuts go away is if Congress swings back over to a Democratic majority, as evidenced by the actions of the 2010-2011 House/Senate holding the federal budget hostage, to the point of the US losing its AAA+ credit rating due to their actions. They have stated outright that they will let the US default on our debts before budging on that point.

Eventual Carrion Thu, May 24, 2012 1:54:32pm

re: #1 Kragar

I don't see how any of this addresses the fact we still haven't seen his birth certificate. Plus, have you seen the pixels yet?
///

[snip]

The pixels always line up in weird ways for me too, my therapist has a name for it but I can't pronounce it.

Ming Thu, May 24, 2012 1:59:12pm

I enthusiastically agree with the blog post. I remember recently reading Andrew Sullivan's take on this, which the blog post quotes. So I'm in complete agreement that the Republicans have been the big spenders, and in comparison the Democrats are much more responsible.

The only caveat I would add: I wish that more Democrats, or liberals, felt more comfortable defending Obama's record based on his fiscal discipline, not to mention what I consider to be his important leadership role in rescuing the entire global capitalist system in 2009.

What I'm trying to say is, even though Republicans are big spenders and big deficit builders IN ACTION, they do convincingly spout the RHETORIC about lower spending and lower deficits (as others have noted in this thread). WHY??? Why are Republicans so much more comfortable with such rhetoric? I wish Democrats would become more comfortable with the idea that fiscal discipline is a virtue, that big spending can't solve every problem, that the free market and free trade can be really great things. Then, Democrats would more convincingly speak about the drunken-sailor spending of George W. Bush, and the tough choices Obama had to make.

To give just one example, I think Obama's free trade agreement with South Korea was extraordinarily well-balanced, helping American workers and American consumers. I'd love to see more liberals speak positively about that free trade agreement.

Until this happens, I fear the Republicans will "own the brand" of free trade, free markets, choice, low spending, and low deficits, even though IN ACTION, they do very much the opposite.

Kragar Thu, May 24, 2012 1:59:15pm

Irony, thy name is Bryan Fischer

“Are they truly willing to risk the future of their political party by cravenly capitulating to a whiny, noisy, hateful and demanding sliver of the American people? “

Killgore Trout Thu, May 24, 2012 2:00:33pm

re: #3 lawhawk

The truth (or the most likely budget scenario) is somewhere between the CBO figure and the chart above.

I'm very cautious about economic projections from partisan think tanks. There's virtually no way for the average human (without a degree in economics) to fact check them. They can (and do) say anything they want. I'll stick with the CBO.

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 2:02:25pm

Starting to gather more sources for a third post at some point.

There is plenty of material to say the least.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:03:03pm

As well as all the unfair accusations about Obama-We have some things here that are unfairly being "blamed" on GWB. 9/11 spending for example. Both military and non military. Programs that auto increase in budget. TARP.

Iraq is of course is on him. But not Afghanistan or the Pakistani aid packages. How much of a Presidents spending should be put to congress instead?

Charts are great but they are not absent of subjective judgements.

re: #9 Killgore Trout

I'm very cautious about economic projections from partisan think tanks. There's virtually no way for the average human (without a degree in economics) to fact check them. They can (and do) say anything they want. I'll stick with the CBO.

Projections from those with economic degrees and experience are also often quite wrong. Asking the best economist on earth what our deficit will be in 2017 is like asking the weatherman what the conditions will be in six months so you can plan your vacation.

Charles Johnson Thu, May 24, 2012 2:04:39pm

re: #9 Killgore Trout

I'm very cautious about economic projections from partisan think tanks. There's virtually no way for the average human (without a degree in economics) to fact check them. They can (and do) say anything they want. I'll stick with the CBO.

That third chart comes directly from the CBO:

[Link: www.cbpp.org...]

Charles Johnson Thu, May 24, 2012 2:07:04pm

Sorry, not the CBO - I meant the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a reputable non-partisan source.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:07:49pm

re: #12 Charles Johnson

I totally agree with point about Obama spending.
But is it right to blame a Republican for the 9/11 spending & TARP? As if they would not have happened with a Democrat in the White House? I would say not. For a more accurate partisan perspective, look at voluntary not involuntary spending.

erik_t Thu, May 24, 2012 2:09:16pm

re: #14 Daniel Ballard

I totally agree with point about Obama spending.
But is it right to blame a Republican for the 9/11 spending & TARP? As if it would not have happened with a Democrat in the White House? I would say not. For a more accurate partisan perspective, look at voluntary not involuntary spending.

The only person that's used the word 'blame' in this thread is you. It's a statement of fact to point out that those expenditures came on W's watch. It'd be a statement of fact to point to other mandatory above-and-beyond expenditures that came on the watch of other presidents.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:12:03pm

re: #15 erik_t

Sullivan puts a partisan take on the relative spending. He blames republicans for spending that would surely have happened no matter who was in the WH. You can be as comfortable with that as you wish. I prefer a more discerning take.

erik_t Thu, May 24, 2012 2:14:38pm

re: #16 Daniel Ballard

Sullivan puts a partisan take on the relative spending. He blames republicans for spending that would surely have happened no matter who was in the WH. You can be as comfortable with that as you wish. I prefer a more discerning take.

I will enthusiastically join your camp as soon as you can provide an objective, consistent, non-political rubric for identifying 'voluntary' versus 'involuntary' spending.

I'll be over here turning blue.

Charles Johnson Thu, May 24, 2012 2:16:50pm

re: #14 Daniel Ballard

I totally agree with point about Obama spending.
But is it right to blame a Republican for the 9/11 spending? As if it would not have happened with a Democrat in the White House? I would say not. For a more accurate partisan perspective, look at voluntary not involuntary spending.

I think a case could be made that a lot of Bush's post-9/11 spending was very unnecessary and counter-productive, but that's a big topic. The bottom line is that the budget absolutely ballooned during the Bush administration, and it was definitely not entirely due to spending that made the country more secure.

The buck stopped at Bush's desk, though. I don't think he gets off the hook because of the 9/11 attacks.

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 2:17:15pm

All of the charts are not correct because they attribute 2009 spending to GWB. In fact, the 2009 budget was signed into law by BHO. (March 2009) It was an unusual situation, but an important distinction.

The last budget year that GWB was responsible for the budget, spending was 20.8% of GDP. 2009, the first budget signed by BHO (stimulus etc.) spending was 25.2% of GDP. All of the comparisons have be made to the wrong year providing a much more favorable comparison year to year.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, May 24, 2012 2:18:29pm

re: #19 compound_Idaho

All of the charts are not correct because they attribute 2009 spending to GWB. In fact, the 2009 budget was signed into law by BHO. (March 2009) It was an unusual situation, but an important distinction.

The last budget year that GWB was responsible for the budget, spending was 20.8% of GDP. 2009, the first budget signed by BHO (stimulus etc.) spending was 25.2% of GDP. All of the comparisons have be made to the wrong year providing a much more favorable comparison year to year.

God give me a break with this bullshit

Killgore Trout Thu, May 24, 2012 2:19:05pm

re: #20 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]

God give me a break with this bullshit

Is he incorrect?

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:19:37pm

re: #17 erik_t

Is looking at it a bit differently for a moment really that unappealing? Why so defensive?

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, May 24, 2012 2:19:56pm

re: #19 compound_Idaho

let's all ignore that thing that happened that almost destroyed our economy

LA LA LA I'M A VERY SERIOUS REPUBLICAN BLOG COMMENTER

erik_t Thu, May 24, 2012 2:22:11pm

re: #22 Daniel Ballard

Is looking at it a bit differently for a moment really that unappealing? Why so defensive?

When you read this string of posts, it's really your interpretation that I'm the one posting in a defensive manner?

Huh.

goddamnedfrank Thu, May 24, 2012 2:22:13pm

re: #15 erik_t

It's a statement of fact to point out that those expenditures came on W's watch. It'd be a statement of fact to point to other mandatory above-and-beyond expenditures that came on the watch of other presidents.

Exactly. It's also a statement of fact that Bush structurally weakened many of the financial oversight regulations that led to the systemic risk requiring TARP. It's a fact that to this day Republicans remain ideologically allergic to regulation.

re: #16 Daniel Ballard

Sullivan puts a partisan take on the relative spending. He blames republicans for spending that would surely have happened no matter who was in the WH. You can be as comfortable with that as you wish. I prefer a more discerning take.

It's difficult to believe that any Democratic President would have ignored Gary Bernsten's desperate requests for troops along the Afghan/Pakistan border during Operation Jawbreaker to instead focus on pre-staging for an elective war in Iraq.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, May 24, 2012 2:22:36pm

re: #21 Killgore Trout

Is he incorrect?

Yes, because his premise is bullshit

Just like yours often are

Maybe you should actually read the comments on this blog, I know it's hard and requires patience

palomino Thu, May 24, 2012 2:23:27pm

re: #14 Daniel Ballard

I totally agree with point about Obama spending.
But is it right to blame a Republican for the 9/11 spending & TARP? As if they would not have happened with a Democrat in the White House? I would say not. For a more accurate partisan perspective, look at voluntary not involuntary spending.

I don't think the overall point here is to blame Bush as much as to defend Obama against absurd charges that he's a big spending Marxist radical. Which he clearly isn't...his economic advisors are Wall St. guys...ooh, how scary and radical and Marxist.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, May 24, 2012 2:23:34pm

re: #16 Daniel Ballard

Sullivan puts a partisan take on the relative spending. He blames republicans for spending that would surely have happened no matter who was in the WH. You can be as comfortable with that as you wish. I prefer a more discerning take.

VERY SERIOUS MAGICAL BALANCE FAIRY RUBS CHIN

Killgore Trout Thu, May 24, 2012 2:24:25pm

re: #19 compound_Idaho

All of the charts are not correct because they attribute 2009 spending to GWB. In fact, the 2009 budget was signed into law by BHO. (March 2009) It was an unusual situation, but an important distinction.

The last budget year that GWB was responsible for the budget, spending was 20.8% of GDP. 2009, the first budget signed by BHO (stimulus etc.) spending was 25.2% of GDP. All of the comparisons have be made to the wrong year providing a much more favorable comparison year to year.

I'm not sure if you're correct about....
[Link: www.gpo.gov...]
when you click on fiscal year 2009 shows the results from Bush's 2008 budget. Is the above information from 2009 Fiscal Year? I'm getting confused.

gwangung Thu, May 24, 2012 2:26:45pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

I'm not sure if you're correct about...
[Link: www.gpo.gov...]
when you click on fiscal year 2009 shows the results from Bush's 2008 budget. Is the above information from 2009 Fiscal Year? I'm getting confused.

I think it's deliberately being done. This poster's repeated the charge despite countervailing facts (I mean, FY09 certainly didn't start with Obama as President, and TARP wasn't passed under his watch).

Kragar Thu, May 24, 2012 2:27:56pm

Nevada GOP Officials Resign After Ron Paul Takeover

Five high-ranking members of the Clark County GOP, which includes the Las Vegas area, have resigned amid disputes with Paul supporters, who dominated a March county convention to take 13 of 14 of executive board spots and performed similarly at the state convention, securing 22 national delegates to Romney’s three. According to the Associated Press, the former Clark County GOP Vice Chairman Woody Stroupe complained the new Paul backers “have been picking fights with the RNC” — at one point they passed a resolution calling for RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to resign.

National Republicans, unhappy with Nevada’s state and county GOP operation, have reportedly moved to bypass them with their own “shadow state party” out of fears they’ll derail Romney’s presidential campaign with ongoing efforts to hand the nomination to Paul, who all but ended his campaign this month.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:30:21pm

re: #25 goddamnedfrank

It's hard to believe that there was not going to be an over reaction in about every sense of the term after the shock of 9/11. Maybe Gore would have been a lot different, certainly not invaded Iraq. But I wonder if he might not have invaded Pakistans tribal zone. NSA and CIA were going to get huge epic increases no matter who. The military was going to grow fast. Foreign aid was going to spike to buy allies like the double dealing Pakistani government agencies.

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 2:31:29pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

That is because the link is to his proposed budget, not the one adopted. Normally this is all done before October at the end of the Presidents term. Congress put off action until BHO took office. BHO signed the FY 2009 Budge March 12, 2009. BHO owns 2009.

Tarp is important to consider, but more important was the stimulus package.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:32:23pm

re: #27 palomino

You will see I agreed with that point in my comment to Charles. Then I'm addressing Sullivans point.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:39:39pm

re: #28 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]

VERY SERIOUS MAGICAL BALANCE FAIRY RUBS CHIN

Thanks for the lefty meme-ories. Cause facts that fly against the winds of partisans are always MBF.

Kronocide Thu, May 24, 2012 2:41:26pm

re: #19 compound_Idaho

All of the charts are not correct because they attribute 2009 spending to GWB. In fact, the 2009 budget was signed into law by BHO. (March 2009) It was an unusual situation, but an important distinction.

A distinction with little difference.

Who created the budget that Obama signed into law 2 months after he came into office?

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 2:45:43pm

re: #36 Kronocide

The democrat controlled house and senate.

Daniel Ballard Thu, May 24, 2012 2:49:08pm

re: #27 palomino

Well I would agree that Wall street has enjoyed at least as much influence on Obama as it did GWB. Maybe that's starting to change. I hope.

jaunte Thu, May 24, 2012 2:54:45pm

How the Deficit Got This Big

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

gwangung Thu, May 24, 2012 2:55:40pm

re: #37 compound_Idaho

This is a context free response that ignores the overall trends from 2001 until now.

Charts, son. Charts.

Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, May 24, 2012 2:56:34pm

So socialism has replaced communism as the great bogey man of American right wingers? Just goes to show how utterly stupid, reactionary, and clueless they are about...well...everything.

Your Police?=Socialism!
Your Fire Department?=Socialism!
Your Water Utility?=Socialism!
Your Sewer Line?=Socialism!
Your Roads?=Socialism!
Your Schools?=Socialism!
Your City Planning and Zoning?=Socialism!
Your Area Mass Transit?=Socialism!
Emergency Room Treatment?=Socialism!
Farm Subsidies?=Socialism!
etc, etc, etc...

Socialism is not per se a bad thing really. Not when it is used to describe things that the community as a whole agrees to jointly pay for to make them available for any citizen's use anyway, socialism can even be admirable and desirable as a necessary part of our civilization.

However, still as of today, even after decades of successful social democratic governments in Europe, any attempt to look up a definition for socialism will bring you to directly to Karl Marx and his theory that "all businesses or other means of generating wealth should be handed over to "the people" so that we could all then live happily on the proceeds without really having to work very hard kind" of socialism.

In fact you will not even find a definition that states it as "shared community financial responsibility for needed services" or anything even remotely like that. No wonder the Right Wingers hate "Socialism" since the only definition they can find when trying to look it up advocates nationalizing all businesses and operating them for "the public good."

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 2:57:36pm

re: #39 jaunte

Might add that to the list of things going for the next "Myths" page. Looks good.

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 3:54:53pm

re: #40 gwangung

This is a context free response that ignores the overall trends from 2001 until now.

Charts, son. Charts.

corrected

2001-2011

The whole comparison hinges on who owns 2009. The 2009 budget was signed by BHO. I think he owns it (at least most of it). Clearly the big jump in spending occurred in 2009 and has remained near 25% of GDP.

source [Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

jaunte Thu, May 24, 2012 3:59:25pm

ACCUSEDOGGLE (n.) conservatives accusing liberals of doing something atrocious to distract from fact conservatives are the ones doing it
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) May 24, 2012

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 4:05:52pm

re: #43 compound_Idaho

corrected

2001-2011

The whole comparison hinges on who owns 2009. The 2009 budget was signed by BHO. I think he owns it (at least most of it). Clearly the big jump in spending occurred in 2009 and has remained near 25% of GDP.

source [Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

You're wrong, and I'm going to make that part of "Part III". If you don't mind I actually would like to include this comment and the discussion if that is ok.
Btw, CATO disagrees with you.

Gus Thu, May 24, 2012 4:20:21pm

Nice page. Clearly it will enrage the astroturfers.

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 4:24:35pm

re: #46 Gus

Cheers!

Facts have a certain way of doing that ...

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 4:27:27pm

re: #45 HAL2010

You may.

PS I think I am right. Did you show me my mistake?

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 4:28:15pm

re: #48 compound_Idaho

I shall tease you mightily and say that I will show you that you're wrong in about a day or two. I'm working on something...

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 4:33:01pm

re: #49 HAL2010

I shall tease you mightily and say that I will show you that you're wrong in about a day or two. I'm working on something...

I'm off for a run, literally. Just a few miles tonight. I'll keep an eye out for rev 3.0 you tease you.

HAL2010 Thu, May 24, 2012 4:39:15pm

re: #50 compound_Idaho

Have a good run!

Gus Thu, May 24, 2012 4:42:23pm

In any event the end of hostilities in Iraq had a positive impact on the budget. Once 2014 comes around and we finally leave AFPAK it will improve significantly. Baring any other unforeseen major conflicts once that takes place hopefully happy days will be with us again and we can move on to being a prosperous nation once again.

austin_blue Thu, May 24, 2012 5:17:20pm

re: #33 compound_Idaho

That is because the link is to his proposed budget, not the one adopted. Normally this is all done before October at the end of the Presidents term. Congress put off action until BHO took office. BHO signed the FY 2009 Budge March 12, 2009. BHO owns 2009.

Tarp is important to consider, but more important was the stimulus package.

Actually, no, he doesn't. He's responsible for ARRA (signed February 12, 2009). But ARRA was independent of the rest of the FY 2009 budget. That was all Bushes and it included TARP.

Kronocide Thu, May 24, 2012 5:18:32pm

re: #37 compound_Idaho

The democrat controlled house and senate.

So.... not Obama.

Ming Thu, May 24, 2012 5:21:09pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

when you click on fiscal year 2009 shows the results from Bush's 2008 budget. Is the above information from 2009 Fiscal Year? I'm getting confused.

I'm no authority, but assuming the 2009 fiscal year was October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, the following entry from Wikipedia, [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] should be of interest. On Monday, September 29, 2008, Congressional Republicans rejected TARP. Finally, on Friday October 3, 2008, after the financial markets really tanked that week, Congress passed TARP. (At the time, the Republican rejection of TARP really spooked the financial markets... a forerunner of their "go to the brink" tactics in Summer 2011.)

Interesting to think about what fiscal year the TARP spending got assigned to. Is Obama getting blamed for the October 3, 2008 TARP spending? I guess so, if that is indeed in "fiscal 2009".

compound_Idaho Thu, May 24, 2012 6:36:53pm

re: #53 austin_blue

Actually, no, he doesn't. He's responsible for ARRA (signed February 12, 2009). But ARRA was independent of the rest of the FY 2009 budget. That was all Bushes and it included TARP.

No doubt TARP belongs to Bush, but ARRA and most of FY 2009 budget was signed into law by BHO and sending has stayed at 25% of GDP ever since.

Killgore Trout Thu, May 24, 2012 6:38:50pm

I'll make an attempt at constructive criticism although it will probably descend into another outrageous outrage.
I think we're all sympathetic to the view that Obama is not a socialist. However, the use of stats from highly partisan sources (defended in the comments with mere insults) and citing absurd idiots like Andrew Sullivan has weakened your case. You are probably technically correct but the source material and disregard for factual accuracy here in the comments leads to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not everything a highly partisan think tank or lunatic claims needs to be defended as gospel truth. You probably could have made the same point more convincing by using more accurate and reliable sources.
Abandoning one set of liars and lunatics shouldn't mandate embracing another set of the same idiots from the other side.

Gus Thu, May 24, 2012 7:15:28pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

I'll make an attempt at constructive criticism although it will probably descend into another outrageous outrage.
I think we're all sympathetic to the view that Obama is not a socialist. However, the use of stats from highly partisan sources (defended in the comments with mere insults) and citing absurd idiots like Andrew Sullivan has weakened your case. You are probably technically correct but the source material and disregard for factual accuracy here in the comments leads to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not everything a highly partisan think tank or lunatic claims needs to be defended as gospel truth. You probably could have made the same point more convincing by using more accurate and reliable sources.
Abandoning one set of liars and lunatics shouldn't mandate embracing another set of the same idiots from the other side.

You missed your calling Killgore. You should have become a priest or a reverend.

Obdicut Thu, May 24, 2012 8:11:49pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

Partisan sources aren't bad in and of themselves. Partisan and dishonest sources are, but you've done nothing in any way to show that these sources (Sullivan, obviously, aside, but he was used for color commentary and not factual backup) are inaccurate.

Calling a source partisan in order to dismiss it is idiotic, and sources that try to be non-partisan can be just as much in error; there's nothing about an attempt at neutrality that is in any way inherently good, or inherently leads to greater accuracy. The truth is often not somewhere in the middle but on one side.

You're being very Politifact; that you grudgingly acknowledge that this is true, and then whine about the style in which it's presented, is boring nebbishing.

If you have an actual critique of the sources, or the numbers, or the logic, have at it.

JamesWI Thu, May 24, 2012 8:57:57pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

I'll make an attempt at constructive criticism although it will probably descend into another outrageous outrage.
I think we're all sympathetic to the view that Obama is not a socialist. However, the use of stats from highly partisan sources (defended in the comments with mere insults) and citing absurd idiots like Andrew Sullivan has weakened your case. You are probably technically correct but the source material and disregard for factual accuracy here in the comments leads to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not everything a highly partisan think tank or lunatic claims needs to be defended as gospel truth. You probably could have made the same point more convincing by using more accurate and reliable sources.
Abandoning one set of liars and lunatics shouldn't mandate embracing another set of the same idiots from the other side.

Funny....when you're in your "look at me, I'm so contrarian" mode, I've seen you link to places like the Daily Mail, PJ Media, etc. But here you are, all holier-than-thou, whining about sources.

Shocking \

simoom Thu, May 24, 2012 9:26:14pm

re: #9 Killgore Trout

I'm very cautious about economic projections from partisan think tanks. There's virtually no way for the average human (without a degree in economics) to fact check them. They can (and do) say anything they want. I'll stick with the CBO.

[Link: www.politifact.com...]

Politifact runs the numbers:

... using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

...

... using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

...

Our ruling

The Facebook post says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years."

Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.

Aye Pod Fri, May 25, 2012 3:03:57am

re: #60 JamesWI

Funny...when you're in your "look at me, I'm so contrarian" mode, I've seen you link to places like the Daily Mail, PJ Media, etc. But here you are, all holier-than-thou, whining about sources.

Shocking

THIS.

Aye Pod Fri, May 25, 2012 3:05:00am

*ribbets*

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Fri, May 25, 2012 3:29:01am

re: #57 Killgore Trout

I'll make an attempt at constructive criticism although it will probably descend into another outrageous outrage.
I think we're all sympathetic to the view that Obama is not a socialist. However, the use of stats from highly partisan sources (defended in the comments with mere insults) and citing absurd idiots like Andrew Sullivan has weakened your case. You are probably technically correct but the source material and disregard for factual accuracy here in the comments leads to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not everything a highly partisan think tank or lunatic claims needs to be defended as gospel truth. You probably could have made the same point more convincing by using more accurate and reliable sources.
Abandoning one set of liars and lunatics shouldn't mandate embracing another set of the same idiots from the other side.

But the stalkers still get their due credit in a shout out? Heh.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

The Myth of ‘Obama the Socialist,’ Part II

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud