Obama, Clinton: Stealthily Regressive

So much lying! So much naivety! Oh Blah blah! Obama! Obamacare! Obama cares not: yes, GDP of the wealthiest, the .1% has been growing. But, in truth, Clinton and Obama were the most stingy presidents of the last 66 years. Far from being progressives, they were the top two regressives and regressors. Here is the graph:

Clinton And Obama Were The Less Progressive Presidents In 66 Years

Clinton And Obama Were The Less Progressive Presidents In 66 Years

I do not expect the insulting fanatics who worship Clinton and Obama to understand the preceding graph. Let me explain a bit more for the others.  The graph above looks at United States government purchases of goods and services. It looks at the purchases at all levels: local, state, and federal. Such purchases are, actually buying real stuff, and work, in contradistinction with transfer payments like Social Security and Medicare.

[Why was there a decrease around 1950? Because of super giant spending due to the Second World War, just prior; after that enormous spending, a retrenchment was in order. However, notice that President Ike brought up spending to 25%! Thus, if one makes, say a five-year rolling average, Clinton and Obama are the lowest in Net Government Investment since… President Hoover; that was 83 years ago; and even Hoover did the Hoover dam, and much more. One can advantageously consult “Wealthcare Endless Summers“.]

Obama has been far from presiding over a huge expansion of government the way he himself and the right-wing, Neoconservative fanatics who now support Hillary Clinton, claim. As a matter of fact, Obama presided over unprecedented austerity, in part driven by spending cuts at the state and local level. Thus it is an astounding triumph of misinformation and disinformation that lackluster economic performance since 2009 has been interpreted as a failure of government spending. Let’s zoom in on Obama’s first term:

Obama Cliamed He Was A Big Spender. Instead, He Spent Big Only On His Friends, The Plutocrats, Soon To Provide Him With Beaucoup Bucks

Obama Cliamed He Was A Big Spender. Instead, He Spent Big Only On His Friends, The Plutocrats, Soon To Provide Him With Beaucoup Bucks

Here it is, massaged differently:

Clinton And Obama, By The Measure Of Annualized Growth Of Real Government Spending, Were The Two Most Conservative US Presidents

Clinton And Obama, By The Measure Of Annualized Growth Of Real Government Spending, Were The Two Most Conservative US Presidents

[Source: Economist View.] So now the hysterical ones on the pseudo-left tell us that Hillary Clinton is not at all like Clinton, Bill, her husband and Obama, her supporter. It is indeed likely: Clinton says she will spend more in education and infrastructure. How much she can deliver with a hostile Congress, is something else. However, Trump has clamored for more government spending since ever. Trump lambasted the decrepit infrastructure of the USA while Obama (and Clinton), in chief command, did nothing about it.

I have said that government spending should be massively  augmented, for years. (But intelligently augmented, a big but, not a big butt!) Even Krugman, the Clinton sycophant, has joined my long held opinion. Here he is, in August 2016:

Time to Borrow, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: …There are, of course, many ways our economic policy could be improved. But the most important thing we need is sharply increased public investment in everything from energy to transportation to wastewater treatment.

How should we pay for this investment? We shouldn’t — not now, or any time soon. Right now there is an overwhelming case for more government borrowing. …

First, we have obvious, pressing needs for public investment in many areas. … Meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at incredibly low interest rates: 10-year, inflation-protected bonds yielded just 0.09 percent on Friday. …

Spending more now would mean a bigger economy later, which would mean more tax revenue…, probably be larger than any rise in future interest payments. And this analysis doesn’t even take into account the potential role of public investment in job creation…”

In any case, no president did worse than Obama, except for skirt-chaser-thanks-to-government-clout Clinton. Would the Clinton of the future be different from the Clinton of the past? Hillary hysterics foam at the mouth, and assure us, that such will be the case. However, as many called me a racist, xenophobe, fascist, hater of Muslim People, Trump lover and even less flattering term, in public, on the Internet in recent days, I now strongly doubt that they are capable of informed judgment.

Yes, be it Hillary or President Trump, real government spending will grow. Both from what they said, and who they are (Trump is a builder used to take loans and invest rather profitably). But also because, after eight years were Obama “signature achievements” consisted in bombing weddings in Yemen, in “signature strikes”, and deploying the health plutocrat friendly (think Buffet) Obamacare, real government spending could not be any lower.

Or then, it was a farce: consider the US government spending on Elon Musk (a South Africa born entrepreneur). If Trump is elected, SpaceX is gone in a year. And so it will be all over: watch Amazon go down in flames. Yes, I do finance heavily my local bookstore, and yes I purchase only two books once at Amazon. Nobody os perfect.

But those who say that Clinton and Obama were progressives, are either liars or ignorant, or cruel, or all the preceding. It is one thing to no be perfect. It is another to wallop in error: to persevere in error is diabolical, the Romans said (“perseverare diabolicum”).

Again, look at this:

I invest Nothing For You People, Becausae You Are Unworthy. Call Me Progressive, Like The Annaconda Who Progressively Squeezes

I invest Nothing For You People, because You Are Unworthy. Call Me Progressive, Like The Anaconda Who Progressively Squeezes

[Notice the dearth of spending under Clinton. Pelosi-Bush invested, until last 3 months of 2008, when Pelosi-Obama signed on Bush’s Sec. of Treasury Paulson’s plan. Pelosi-Obama invested in plutocrats thereafter (mostly, although there was a small genuine ‘stimulus’ which worked wonders).]

I expect feeble minds and cultural retards to not understand such a graph. They will probably revert to insults. And I do not expect them to understand what this means for analyzing the reasons for the frantic support of the Obamas for Clinton. You see, ultimately, investing is a zero sum game, in the instant: the US government did not invest, because all its discretionary money went to plutocrats. And this is why the Main Stream Media, held by plutocrats, is so anti-Trump. Trump, who is one of them, plutocrats, know very well where the investment streams are going. If Trump wants a bigger name, and he does, he will have to divert them, towards We The People. And all and any president, but for Clinton, did this, investing in the USA, better than Obama did. Since president Hoover.

In retrospect, those who wanted progress, at least by the measure of investing in the country, should never have voted for Clinton or Obama. How can one hope that the creature closest to them would be any different?

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Obama, Clinton: Stealthily Regressive”

  1. Gmax Says:

    So you have a graphic proof that Obama is not a progressive. Well done

  2. SDM Says:

    These graphs are intriguing. Without question, spending for the public good has withered- one need only look at our roads, bridges, schools, airports, parks, etc. Failing to tax the top percentages has let them stockpile cash in tax havens. Only by taxing them can the money be put back into the economy for the 99% – or as the tax policy used to be, if you won’t invest it, then the IRS will take it and the government will invest it. Plutocrats have no incentive to invest now that the tax man is not coming for them.

    Obama obviously squandered his first 2 years when so much needed to be done but then again was it not true that many Dems were as much against single payer as the GOP? Infrastructure and debt relief for the 99% got short shrift while wall street got paid. Both parties share blame for this as they are corporate controlled.

    What is somewhat intriguing is what did W Bush presidency spend on besides military? Was not the Iraq war financed by debt and not taxes? Is there a graph that shows where and how the money was spent?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That the Dems blocked MEDICARE FOR ALL, I have said ad nauseam. I proposed it way back. Obama proposed for his cabinet, and other Dems. All shot it down. I was invited to Washington. However, as I was busy making a daughter, I was many thousand miles away, and the moment passed.
      My whole argument is that it is the Dems who blocked the MEDICARE FOR ALL. The Republicans have NOTHING to do with it. This is why I detailed the LACK OF SUPERMAJORITY LIE. (In the comments there, one has an example of the stupidity of my contradictors).
      This is one reason why I am so suspicious of Clinton. She was against MEDICARE FOR ALL then. (Trump in the past proferred admiration for Canadian and Scottish healthcares, which are not the same, BTW.)

  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/huma-abedins-mom-problem/
    Huma Abedin’s mom problem
    In Sunday’s Post, Paul Sperry broke the news that top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin served for 12 years on a terrorist Muslim Fundamentalist paper…
    NYPOST.COM
    Patrice Ayme http://thehill.com/…/292310-huma-abedins-ties-to-the-Muslim Brotherhood
    THEHILL.COM

    By the way, I am of Sufi background, and I view all these Wahhabists as dangerous, abusive primitives whose main business is to extort others, using their religion. That they have taken over much of the Muslim world is no excuse. And I counted my Muslim friends a bit better, I have 12 around.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/…/fbi_sources_tell_fox…
    FBI Sources Tell Fox News An “Indictment Is Likely” In Clinton Foundation Case
    Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips: 1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far…

  4. TRUMPED BY TRUTH | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Trump, unwittingly parroting me, said that Obama “maybe the worst president the USA” ever knew. I said this years ago. It was not quite true. I was trying to wake Obama up. Actually Bill Clinton was worse. […]

  5. picard578 Says:

    Reblogged this on Defense Issues.

  6. Obama’s Fault | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] have made for years, and most recently in: Obama is a (stealth) regressive, not a progressive, the remark that net investment by governments of the G7 is the lowest in at least 60 […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: