Worst. Socialist. Ever.

You probably don’t remember this, or never knew about it to begin with, but the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial back in 2009 arguing that the weak stock market at the time was a result of investors evaluating President Obama’s “agenda and his approach to governance.”

Lots of other conservatives — Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, et al — were singing the same tune. They contended that Obama was pursuing a course of unprecedented American socialism, and Wall Street was reacting with revulsion.  To hear them tell it, the man was a veritable Marxist.

But, of course, we don’t hear too much of that stuff anymore. No longer is the stock market seen as a measure of resistance to Obama’s socialism. That theme seems not to have worked out too well for the demagogues of the political right.

The thing is, as Steve Benen PUTS IT:

Obama is the worst socialist of all time. A soaring stock market, record high corporate profits, private sector job growth … it’s almost as if the president didn’t listen to Karl Marx at all.

All joking aside, I don’t consider major Wall Street indexes a reliable metric when it comes to measuring the health of the economy. Indeed, it’s not even close.

But here’s the kicker: Obama’s detractors do consider major Wall Street indexes a reliable metric when it comes to measuring the health of the economy.


I don’t think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy, but I also don’t think the right should have it both ways. If a bear market in 2009 is, in the minds of conservatives, clear proof that Obama’s agenda is misguided and dangerous, then soaring Wall Street indexes shouldn’t be dismissed by those same detractors as politically irrelevant.



  1. Socialism has little to do with the stock market. It has to do with the government takeover of traditionally private sector resources. One of the best ways to measure this is by looking at the Outlays as a percentage of GDP. If we look at table 1.3 from the White House Budget reports we see what Obama has been doing.


    Now look at the history of column J we can clearly see an increase of government spending from around 19% of GDP to over 24% of GDP. If you look at the normalized column F in Constant 2005 dollars you will see about a spending increase of about 25% ($2564.1B in 2007 to 3212.5 B in 2012)

    And what do we get for all this massive increase of government spending? A continued stagnant economy, massive deficits, sky rocketing food stamps, and millions leaving the work force. What’s fascinating is that liberals think that MORE spending will fix all this. HA! Obama isn’t the worst Socialist of all time, but he’s also not a very productive one.

  2. The data show that the markets do better under Democratic presidents than republican presidents.

  3. “What’s fascinating is that liberals conservatives think that MORE LESS spending will fix all this. HA! HA!

  4. Jerry – That same data shows markets do better when Congress is under control by Republicans.

  5. For someone to say that socialism has little to do with the stock market proves that they are in no position to be making comments about socialism. Socialism, as defined by Merriam Webster, how it pertains to financial matters, is:

    1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

    2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

    The fact that the stockmarket exists and is doing well should tell anyone of average intelligence that Obama is no socialist.

  6. Neftali,
    Send me a link verifying what you say. I would be interesting in reading it.

  7. Federal spending was the highest under Reagan and Bush and lowest under Clinton and Obama. Now who’s the socialist?

  8. Steverino – Spending was high under Reagan, mostly because of the liberals in Congress. But you are 100% wrong about spending being down under Obama. Look at my link again to the White House spreadsheets. When you’re done, look at it again. Then look at it tomorrow. Perhaps eventually it will sink into that thick skull of yours.

    Jerry – I’m sure you can figure it out on your own. But here’s a link that shows the history of the composition of Congress. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

  9. Nef said: “If we look at table 1.3 from the White House Budget reports we see what Obama has been doing.”

    You need to look a little closer, Nef. The increase from 2007 to 2009 was 24%. The 2009 fiscal year was still under GWB’s budget. From 2009 to 2012 the increase under Obama has been only 1%.

    As a percentage of GDP it increased 28% from 2007 to 2009. From 2009 to 2012 under Obama it decreased 1 % as a percentage of GDP.

    So those big increases you are touting came under GWB, not Obama as you would like to believe.

  10. tex – 2009 included the TARP bailout. It should have been a one-time anomaly, but Obama kept those high spending rates every year.

  11. Nef said:” 2009 included the TARP bailout. It should have been a one-time anomaly, but Obama kept those high spending rates every year.”

    Well Nef, the TARP program only used $463 billion. The deficit increased by $1.1 trillion from 2007 to 2009. The reason is because Bush kept the wars and the drug program on the credit card, and Obama put it back on the budget. Those have continued to add to the deficit every year.
    If it was the President that kept that high spending rate, how did he do that? What did he spend it on? Only Congress can authorize spending. Tell us where he spent $1.1 trillion.

  12. tex – What did he spend it on? Medicare. Medicaid. Food Stamps. You know, entitlements. The stuff that by far makes up the largest portion of our budget.

  13. Ha! Ha! Ha! Nice try, Nef. But you get no points for that statement. You can’t spin it. Everyone knows the debt started with GWB and continues to this day. Republicans can try to spin it to entitlements, but it’s not going to stick. And now the Republicans want to return us to GWB’s failed policies.

  14. Everyone knows Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and he hasn’t even come close.

    Bush is gone. Obama has been President for almost 4 years. On deficit control he receives and F.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *