tpmmedia: An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly TPM’s Sahil Kapur looks at the numbers behind a recurrent theme of recent budget debates: A dominant theme of the national political discourse has been the crushing spending spree the U.S. has ostensibly embarked on during the Obama presidency. That argument, ignited by Republicans and picked up by many elite opinion makers, has infused the national dialogue and shaped the public debate in nearly every major budget battle of the last thee years. But the numbers tell a different story. The fact that the national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to $15.6 trillion under Obama’s watch makes for easy partisan attacks. But the vast bulk of the increase was caused by a combination of revenue losses due to the 2008-09 economic downturn as well as Bush-era tax cuts and automatic increases in safety-net spending that were already written into law. Obama’s policies, including the much-criticized stimulus package, have caused the slowest increase in federal spending of any president in almost 60 nears, according to data compiled by the financial news service MarketWatch. (Read the full story)

tpmmedia:

An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly

TPM’s Sahil Kapur looks at the numbers behind a recurrent theme of recent budget debates:

A dominant theme of the national political discourse has been the crushing spending spree the U.S. has ostensibly embarked on during the Obama presidency. That argument, ignited by Republicans and picked up by many elite opinion makers, has infused the national dialogue and shaped the public debate in nearly every major budget battle of the last thee years.

But the numbers tell a different story.

The fact that the national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to $15.6 trillion under Obama’s watch makes for easy partisan attacks. But the vast bulk of the increase was caused by a combination of revenue losses due to the 2008-09 economic downturn as well as Bush-era tax cuts and automatic increases in safety-net spending that were already written into law.

Obama’s policies, including the much-criticized stimulus package, have caused the slowest increase in federal spending of any president in almost 60 nears, according to data compiled by the financial news service MarketWatch.

(Read the full story)

Tumblr Ads

I believe I just saw my first Tumblr ad. And you know what? It was good. On my Radar, there is a gif of Coke being poured into a glass. It comes from the Coca-Cola account. Maybe I haven’t noticed an ad before, or maybe they weren’t as good, but as I wrote at the beginning of the month:

Tumblr is trying to tap into the creativeness that thrives on the platform and also let its users interact with brands in a creative way.

“Brands can’t simply approach Tumblr paid placements the same way they would take on, say, Facebook paid advertising,” said Ron Schott, senior strategist at digital agency Spring Creek Group. “Content needs to be interesting and shareable, not just eye-catching.”

Rolling out an ad platform to a community virulently opposed to ads isn’t the easiest thing in the world. Tumblr has taken baby steps to introduce both brands and users to advertising. Up until this week, the company tried different ways to generate revenue. It takes a piece of the action from designers who sell custom themes, and for a dollar, users can highlight their posts throughout their dashboard. But now Tumblr is letting advertisers buy ad space on the dashboard through the Radar — the ever-changing space where Tumblr highlights interesting posts — as well as through the Tumblr directory.

“I see the ad piece as being the way for brands to get started on the platform to build their audience,” said Noah Brier, CEO of content-curation technology Percolate.

Packages start at $25,000 and brands that buy in can highlight one of its posts — typically images or text, but all post types (quotes, links, chats, audio and video) are available to be to be included in the Radar — so that users will see, and then hopefully share the content

Native ads in the wild. Wild.

On Privacy, Publishers Prefer the Sideline »

Are publishers kicking the can down the road when it comes to user privacy?

Privacy has been a thorny issue for publishers since the Web began. Most dealt with it in a simple way: get the lawyers to do a privacy policy, make sure not to use personally identifiable information and regularly point out the direct-mail industry is the one that should get the real scrutiny.

That lasted until it didn’t. The threat of Do Not Track legislation spurred the industry into action on the self-regulation front in order to head off government rules. The problems of protecting consumer privacy in the modern digital world is fiendishly complex. You can forgive many publishers for believing this is an issue that shouldn’t even involve them very much.

“The biggest issue for most publishers is aggressive third-party ad networks who collect data about a publisher’s readers without the publisher knowing,” said BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.

“I think the battle ground of privacy isn’t happening around content properties,” added Troy Young, president of Say Media. “It’s way more to do with Facebook in particular. There’s user-experience issues that pertain to privacy; when you customize experience based on someone’s social graph, it needs to be explained to users.”

Insight: Morgan Stanley cut Facebook estimates just before IPO »

In the run-up to Facebook’s $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter on the deal, unexpectedly delivered some negative news to major clients: The bank’s consumer Internet analyst, Scott Devitt, was reducing his revenue forecasts for the company.

The sudden caution very close to the huge initial public offering, and while an investor roadshow was underway, was a big shock to some, said two investors who were advised of the revised forecast.

Dimon’s Déjà Vu Debacle »

The point is that it’s not O.K. for banks to take the kinds of risks that are acceptable for individuals, because when banks take on too much risk they put the whole economy in jeopardy — unless they can count on being bailed out. And the prospect of such bailouts, of course, only strengthens the case that banks shouldn’t be allowed to run wild, since they are in effect gambling with taxpayers’ money.

Incidentally, how is it possible that Mr. Romney doesn’t understand all of this? His whole candidacy is based on the claim that his experience at extracting money from troubled businesses means that he’ll know how to run the economy — yet whenever he talks about economic policy, he comes across as completely clueless.

Arguably the biggest insight, however, comes from looking at the individual Pinocchio categories. Republicans got nearly three times as many “four Pinocchio” ratings as Democrats (thirty-three versus twelve), according to our analysis. They were also overrepresented in the “three Pinocchio” category (forty-two versus thirty-one) and the “two Pinocchio” category (seventy-six versus fifty-five), the most frequent category used. »

But, interestingly, this trend did not hold up in the “one Pinocchio” category, in which Democrats predominated (forty versus twenty-six). In other words, although the Post flagged Democrats for a lot of minor sins, the more egregious falsehoods were clustered among Republicans. (In checking one of President Obama’s statements, Kessler acknowledged it was such a minor infraction that it might deserve a “half-Pinocchio,” if there were such a thing.)

"Community" now finds itself in the TV equivalent of a medically induced coma: a 13-episode order on a Friday-night time slot with "Whitney" as its lead-in. And in the unlikely event that the new producers do manage to engineer a ratings renaissance, the best that could be hoped for is "Community" being pushed around from one competitive time slot to the next, where it can be a tackling dummy for hotter shows on other networks. »

Variety’s Andrew Wallenstein explains why Community is in a no-win situation. Click through to read the full post.

If there’s any hope in rejuvenating “Community,” the trick may be in not veering too far or quickly from the tone of the three prior seasons, problematic as it was. Too drastic an adjustment will scare off the base the series attracted in the first place.

“

The article makes a point of quoting Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for a contrary view on warming.

Why? If there was an earthquake, the Times would not seek out a denier of earthquakes. If this was an article on medicine, the Times would not automatically seek out the views of a homeopath or acupuncturist. If this was an article on astronomy, you (the Times) would not make an obligatory pilgrimage to the UFO community. Yet on climate change… you bow again and again to the immense vested interests that fund the climate denial industry. This does not give your readers balance – in fact, it distorts their views of the actual facts.

Mr Ebell’s organisation receives substantial funding from Exxon Mobil, a point not mentioned in this article.

”

Letter to the editor of the New York Times, eviscerating their “balanced” reporting on climate change. It’s a must read letter, here. (via climateadaptation)

Nikola Tesla Wasn't God And Thomas Edison Wasn't The Devil »

The Oatmeal is a fantastic comic that I recommend that you make a habit of reading. However, even the greatest can go astray, and I’m pained to admit that The Oatmeal has done so regarding someone I regard very highly, and that’s Nikola Tesla. Alas, The Oatmeal has fallen prey to Tesla idolatry, confusing his genius for godhood and of course, setting up the now all-too-common ‘Edison as Tesla’s arch-villain’ narrative.

There are quite a few errors and misconceptions about both Tesla and Edison in this comic. But they’re errors that I’ve seen before and are often repeated, so it’s worth the time, I think, to address some of the big ones.