QUIZ: are you qualified to create a conservative budget?

Serious Budget

Serious Budget

Take this two-question quiz. If you answer both questions correctly, then YOU are qualified to draft a conservative budget plan for the United States.

Question 1: The cost for this element of the federal budget accounts for less than 1% of the annual federal deficit. However, it needs to be cut immediately. The meaning of this cut would be symbolic: when we are trying to tighten our belts, every little bit counts. This program is not needed, and some studies suggest that it impacts a very small minority of the population anyway. Because this program only helps a small number of people, but is paid for by everyone’s tax dollars, it represents socialism. It must be eliminated.

This program is:

A)  PBS
B)  Tax breaks for corporate jet owners

Question 2: The cost for this element of the federal budget accounts for less than 1% of the annual federal deficit. However, to cut it would be a complete disaster. Because the amount of money is so small, it will not put a dent in our real economic problems and therefore should be ignored, as it is just a distraction from more important issues. It only benefits a small portion of the population, but the people it benefits are the ones who should be helped. Therefore, we need to keep this program in place.

This program is:

A)  PBS
B)  Tax breaks for corporate jet owners

 

 


 

If you answered (A) PBS to the first question, and (B) Tax breaks for corporate jet owners for the second question, then CONGRATULATIONS!   ….you are qualified to create a conservative federal budget plan!

 

Related Story: Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition

 

This graph DARES to imply that lazy people aren’t the problem!

Interest is the problem

Interest is the problem

According to this graph, entitlements for lazy people are NOT the main reason that the Federal Deficit will explode over the long term. This contradicts conservative values and therefore must be wrong.

We are always hearing from the great conservative minds of our time that our current economic path is unsustainable, and the reason is because the government gives free stuff to lazy people with Obama phones. We are specifically told that Medicare and Medicaid and Socialist Security are all spinning out of control, and that their costs will “explode the deficit” over time.

It seems strange, then, that this graph, produced by the socialist far-left organization known as the “Treasury Department”, shows that these gifts-for-lazy-people are actually remarkably stable over time and do not increase the deficit!

Instead, according to this graph, the biggest problem is the interest on existing debt.

In fact, if you look at the difference between the black line (total receipts) and the dotted line that marks the top of the colored area (non-interest spending), the total non-interest deficit is extremely small, and much smaller than the overall spending for entitlements for lazy people.

There really isn’t a lot to say about this graph, except that it’s obviously wrong.  We’re not entirely sure how it’s wrong, or why. But, it contradicts Sean Hannity… so it must, in some way or other, be guilty of liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: Treasury Department report
graph found via: The Fiscal Times

Mark Levin proves the debt is really 1 Quadrillion Dollars!!

The Real Federal Debt

The Real Federal Debt

Since people aren’t as terrified as they should be, Mark Levin has been spending a lot of time proving the debt is much bigger than our lying government is telling us. He does a good job, but we think he could go even farther.

It all began last November, when Chris Crox and Bill Archer published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining why the federal debt is much bigger than everyone thinks.

Their logic was simple and direct. The federal government tells you that our debt is $15.96 trillion. But that is misleading because that is only what we owe now.  Sure, it most people think the word “debt” actually means “what you owe now”, but we should change that.  What if we were to say that the “debt” should also include stuff you are going to owe in the future!!!

Financial people call this type of thing unfunded liability. An unfunded liability is something you know you are going to owe in the future, even though you don’t technically owe it yet. Cox and Archer say that we should include this stuff in what we call our “debt”.

Just to make this personal and concrete for you: imagine you are a young person with a spouse and you have a 1 year old child. This would be like adding that child’s college tuition when figuring out what your “debt” is, because after all you are going to owe that money eventually. That makes perfect sense, right?  Your child is one year old, so you might as well think of that child’s college tuition as your current debt.

Using this reasoning, Cox and Archie say that our debt is not only the $15.97 trillion that we owe now, but also the $20.5 trillion that we will eventually owe on Social Security for all of the people alive today who will some day collect social security (in the future), and also the $23.5 trillion that we will eventually owe on retirement benefits for current federal employees who are not yet retired but eventually will be (in the future), and also the $42.8 trillion that we will eventually owe on Medicare for all people who are currently alive and will eventually be paid Medicare (in the future)!

That adds up to $86.8 trillion!  This is a brilliant accounting trick!  Because if your goal is to really really freak people the fuck out, then what better way is there than to say that their “debt” includes stuff that hasn’t happened yet?

So Mark Levin heard about this article, and has recently been citing it whenever he gets a chance. As a result, these numbers have been cropping up everywhere. So if you see the number $86.8 trillion anywhere, this is where it comes from. That number is now being proudly announced as the “real debt” in blog comments and by talk radio callers everywhere.

However, although Mark Levin is doing a great job (as usual), we here at Liberal Bias believe he does not go far enough.

I mean, let’s use some common sense.  If we are going to include future retirement money on the people currently in federal office, why not also include retirement money for people that we haven’t yet elected but we are sure we will elect some day?  If we are going to include Medicare for all people alive but who are not yet receiving Medicare payments, then why not also include the money for all Medicare for all future humans that will be born for the next 40 years? Why not also include all of the costs that we are sure to incur just from having dumb liberal presidents in the future?

The point is, why wait? Why not just add in all of that future money NOW, and call it part of our current debt? There is no need to stop at a measly $86.8 trillion!

 

To illustrate this point, we have created the above graph. Using the infallible reasoning of Mark Levin, and merely extending it a little bit to its logical conclusion, we can conclusively prove that  our current national debt is 1 quadrillion dollars!

You heard it hear first.

 

Graph Data Source: this graph has been created for illustrative purposes only. Liberal “actual” data was not used.

Related Story: Mark Levin proves that unemployment is really 50%

Stupid graph blames Reagan for most of the debt

Reagan Bush National Debt

This graph is obviously false and based on liberal bias and propaganda. It implies that our current debt is mostly due to Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and only a teeny bit due to Obama. But that can’t possibly be right.

This graph starts in 1981 and shows how the national debt has grown since Reagan took office. As you can see, the debt increased dramatically under the Reagan-Bush I era. Under Clinton, all of the increase in the debt was actually due to interest that was building up from the Reagan-Bush I debt. That is why the red line stays on top of the blue/purple line during that time. Then, when Bush II  takes office, he starts accumulating more debt.  The red line traces out where the total debt would have been if the only money that we owed was based on interest from the Reagan-Bush I years.  The Purple line represents additional spending, on top of that, approved under the Bush years.

Finally, you can see where the purple and blue lines separate. The purple line shows what the debt would be if the only debt  that we took on during the Obama administration was interest on the Bush-era debt. The blue line shows the actual total debt, which obviously is increasing faster than the purple line because of additional spending approved by Obama.

When you look at the total current debt this way, it appears as though a very small portion of our current debt is actually due to Obama’s spending.  It appears as though most of the current debt is due to old debt accrued under Reagan and the two Bush administrations, and interest on those old debts.

But this is obviously false and a liberally biased talking point. We can’t actually find anything concrete that is wrong with this line of reasoning; but we know it’s false. The reason we know it is false is based on this argument:

1) Stop blaming the past

2) Obama should man up

3) Obama wants to destroy the economy, so this is all on purpose.

In the face of the irrefutable logic of these arguments, you can clearly see that the above graph must be wrong. (Even if we can’t really put a finger on why or how.)

To think that this graph could even possibly be right would simply be to give in to liberal bias!!!!

graph source: zFacts.com

graph reveals liberal anti-American agenda

Obama Flag Icon

Subliminal Messages

Some of you have seen the above graph that has been circulated by liberals to try to confuse us into thinking that conservatives are not fiscally responsible.

All of their arguments have already been debunked, so I will not waste time doing it again here. Instead, I would like to point out the subliminal propaganda that demonstrates–no, actually proves beyond a shadow of a doubt–that liberals hate America.

Our crack team of specialists, investigative journalists, and political analysis have examined the icons used in the above graph in minute detail, and they have discovered a very interesting pattern: the liberal presidents are showing less of the American Flag in their icons than the conservative presidents!

Just look at these two icons in detail as examples:

Bush Flag IconObama Flag Icon

WHY are the liberal presidents afraid to be associated with the American flag? Are they ashamed to be seen with it? Is it because the want to send a secret message to their foreign friends about whose side they are really on?

Liberals might want to distract you from this issue, by telling you to focus on the “real” substance of the above graph or the “data” that it presents about the national debt.

But every time a liberal shows you this graph, make sure you ask them this: WHAT ABOUT THE FLAGS?

If they don’t want to discuss it, if they pretend to be confused or baffled by the question, there is only one explanation: Liberal bias!!

graph source: Office of the Democratic Leader
data source:  The Treasury Department
graph found viaMoveOn.org