Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist

[dapperdan]

Btw, what I was going to post before I read the series of misguided responses...was an interesting piece by Barry Ritholtz:

The Surprisingly Shrinking Government Footprint | The Big Picture

The Surprisingly Shrinking Government Footprint

First things first: My critic says that actual government spending is roughly $3.8 trillion. I assume he’s looking at Federal Government: Current Expenditures (FGEXPND), which peaked out a year ago at about that $3.8 trillion level ($3.8295, to be exact). So let’s pull back the lens and see how the Obama administration is doing on that metric and view what I like to refer to as the Whole Enchilada:

It’s a sure bet that Obama’s almost immediate near-vertical rise is stimulus related [BR: What about ongoing GSE Bailouts?]. And now, well, you can just see for yourself that he’s spending like a drunken sailor, just like that ******* Clinton did. So, there’s your “all in” chart. Any criticism of Obama’s spendthrift ways should start with an explanation of that red line relative to the other four (well, three, actually, since Clinton was a loser with a capital “L”).

My critic (correctly) points out of the series I used: “Left out are all the other expenses — things that are not consumption. Like salaries. Like transfer payments such as Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and Social Security, other than physical direct consumption in those programs.”

Yeah, well, let’s just see about that, shall we*:

For the 30,000-foot view, here are the Big Three from 1970:

What it shows is that after an initial spending jolt, President Obama as not been the big spender that I have made him out to be. Spending has pretty much flat-lined for the last year.

[dapperdan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/bu...2&ref=business

FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

Spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate under President Obama. But that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by state and local governments, which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts.

In the first quarter of this year, the real gross domestic product for the government — including state and local governments as well as federal — was 2 percent lower than it was three years earlier, when Barack Obama took office in early 2009.

The last time the government actually got smaller over the first three years of a presidential term was when Richard M. Nixon was president. That decrease was largely because of declining spending on the Vietnam War.

[Brandon13]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

You've completely missed the point of the post, you didn't read far enough, or just wanted to believe what you wanted to believe I guess...the point is a political strategy point, not an opinion from me advocating that Obama is a closet communist...from a political strategy perspective, why would Team Obama leave themselves open to such obvious criticism?

To provide Republicans the opportunity to marginalize themselves by clinging to the Obama campaign's slogan as further proof that Obama is a closeted communist?

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by Brandon13

Little Green Footballs - Was Richard M. Nixon a Closet Marxist: Forward Together

He did coin the phrase: "We're all Keynesians now" So you never know.

Actually, you may have hit on something. I see a lot of similarities between Nixon and Obama...Thanks for pointing it out.

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by Brandon13

To provide Republicans the opportunity to marginalize themselves by clinging to the Obama campaign's slogan as further proof that Obama is a closeted communist?

Roflmao...uh, yeah.

[Brandon13]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

Roflmao...uh, yeah.

I don't really believe that (didn't think you'd take it seriously). But you did come in here and post the article and then proceeded to ponder upon the slogan's deeper meaning, so if the plan had been to make Obama critics like you look ridiculous, it would have been:



What I do believe is that the Obama administration holds an indifferent view towards the effects of this manufactured mini-controversy and the individuals who would perpetuate it and believe it, whose votes Obama never would have received in the first place.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by Brandon13

What I do believe is that the Obama administration holds an indifferent view towards the effects of this manufactured mini-controversy and the individuals who would perpetuate it and believe it, whose votes Obama never would have received in the first place.

This.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

You've completely missed the point of the post, you didn't read far enough, or just wanted to believe what you wanted to believe I guess...the point is/was a political strategy point, not an opinion from me advocating that Obama is a closet communist...from a political strategy perspective, why would Team Obama leave themselves open to such obvious criticism?

I know, right? I mean, why do those black people eat watermelon, leaving themselves open to obvious stereotyping? Why does Obama not provide all the documents being demanded by anyone who wants any document in his past, since not doing it just invites criticisms? Why didn't G W Bush do everything he could do to immediately help all the people in New Orleans, since not doing so left him open to the obvious criticism that he hates black people?

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Superfan

Universities exploit government money and students. It is not right to give grant money for students. Also there is 1 trillion in student loan debt. What a joke. Let's raise taxes to bail everyone out.

As a college professor, I am profoundly insulted by this remark. I teach at a two-year university (LSU-Eunice), I have not had a raise in five years, and I've watched our state government cut our budget by 33% over that time period, thus forcing our students to make up the difference (with student loan debt). Nevertheless, every year, my colleagues and I give our students the opportunity to better their lives, both intellectually and financially, and I don't remember ever asking anyone to thank me for it. I have enjoyed your football-related posts, Superfan, but this statement is ignorant and foolish. In our state, it's the government that exploits the universities (and hospitals) and the students. But if you think that educating 18-year-olds who are often the first members of their family to graduate from high school--let alone go to college--is "exploitation," then I think you need a little "exploitation" yourself.