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:

Home value chart has a liberal bias!

Biased Home Values Graph

This is yet another sinister liberal graph that attempts to mislead the viewer by providing too much information. Liberals will try to use this to take the blame away from Obama, but we won’t let that happen!

This graph shows how the relative value of home has changed over more than 100 years. If you look at this graph, you might think that the drastic skyrocketing of home values that started under Clinton and continued through the Bush years looks like an anomaly.  Based on this graph, you might think that the value of houses during the peak of this bubble represented seriously unrealistic and inflated values that could never be sustained in a realistic economy.  If you are starting from this graph, you might think that the problem started way before Obama ever came to power. One might even conclude, looking at this graph, that it would be completely normal for the market to continue to drop housing prices until they return to the range of 1980’s – 1990’s values.


This graph makes use of a very dirty trick that we have talked about before: it shows more information than you need.  It’s likely to confuse you or befuddle you into thinking maybe everything isn’t Obama’s fault.

Unskewed Home ValuesThus, we can improve this graph. We can “unskew” it and remove the liberal bias by eliminating the extra data. This is what we do in the graph that appears to the left.  By highlighting the information that people should be focusing on, the fact that housing prices have dropped DRAMATICALLY throughout Obama’s presidency, we prevent any unwholesome doubts or questions that might sneak into your mind when you look at the previous, liberally biased graph.

So always remember, if some liberal ever dares to say that the current continued decline in housing values is NOT Obama’s fault, just show them this unskewed graph, and yell “in your face”!  Because that means you won the argument.


graph data source: “Irrational Exuberance”, 2006, by Robert Shiller
graph found via: The Big Picture

Liberal graph claims the 2007 financial crisis is not that bad

Foreign Financial Crisis Comparison

Look at this terrible, socialist graph. According to this graph, the American financial crisis of 2007 has actually done better than 4 out of the 5 top international financial crises. But that is just crazy-talk.

According to this graph, created by noted economist, communist, and kitten-hater Josh Lehner, when you compare the current United State economic crisis, in terms of percent job losses, to the five other biggest international financial crises over the last several decades, the American financial crisis is actually not as deep (i.e. had a smaller total percent job loss at its worst point) and is recovering faster than 4 out of those 5 other crises.

He goes on to suggest, like the typical left-wing nut-job that he is, that this might have something to do with things like international economic factors over which our country has no control and the fiscal stimulus efforts introduced not only in the United States but also in foreign countries. But this is obviously a stupid suggestion since Rush Limbaugh has said repeatedly that the stimulus was a complete failure that did nothing at all.

The biggest problem with this graph, however, is that it compares the United States to other countries. We expect them to have problems that are bigger than ours, because they don’t have as much Freedom.  This is a clear fact because they do not have our constitution, which is the document that Jesus gave us to ensure that we would always have more freedom than everyone else.

We therefore must conclude that the above graph should just be ignored. The only graph that matters is the below graph, which clearly shows that the current recession is much worse than other American recessions:

Recession Comparison Without Liberal Bias

Anyone who dares to suggest that the global market, the international scope of the economic downturn, or foreign financial issues might in any way have anything to do with the “Obama Economic Collapse of 2007” is obviously just spreading liberal bias!!!!


graph created by: Josh Lehner
graph found via:

Food Stamp graphs have liberal bias!

Liberal Food Stamp Graph

Look at this tricksy liberal graph. It attempts to mislead the viewer by providing much more information than anyone could possibly need. But we know how to fix that.

The problem with this graph is that it shows changes in food stamps since January 2006. There is no need to go back that far. If you go back that far, it leaves too many openings for liberals to do their dirty work.  For example:

Un-American Liberals might point to that graph and say, “Look at how Obama has been able to decrease the rate of food stamp growth when you compare his inauguration to now!”

Crazy irrational Liberals might point to that graph and say, “Look at how food stamp growth now isn’t really that different from what it was during the Bush administration before the recession.”


Un-Skewed GraphHere we present to you the graph as it should appear. This graph correctly focuses in on the thing that matters: food stamp growth has been exploding out of control for the last several months!!!  Holy cow! Look at that trend line!!! (The red arrow that I drew, I mean!)

This graph correctly provides just enough information for you to focus on, process, and understand. It cannot be cluttered by liberal irrelevancies like “long term trends”.  Make sure that if you have a discussion about food stamps with your unsanitary liberal co-workers, you forward them this graph and then laugh as they cower in fear and wrongness.

Graph Data Source: SNAP, Zero Hedge

Graph Found Via:

Consumer sentiment has a liberal bias!

Liberal Consumer Sentiment

This graph is completely unacceptable. HOW DARE consumer sentiment increase to levels higher than any seen since July 2007. Obviously there is something sinister at work here.

Good, honest conservative voices have repeatedly stated that Obama has completely destroyed this economy, thrown growth into the gutter, set the constitution on fire, and personally killed small cute kittens with his own hands.

So why are consumers acting like things are actually getting better?


Clearly, if consumer confidence is in any way suggesting that Obama has helped the economy to improve, then consumer confidence itself must be infected with the dreaded liberal bias!!!!


Graph data source: Reuters / University of Michigan consumer sentiment index
Graph found via:

Robert Murray recognized as America’s MPP!

Robert Murray wins the Most Patriotic Patriot who loves Freedom and Liberty Award!

We at LiberalBias.Com are proud to announce the first ever recipient of the brand new and prestigious Most Patriotic Patriot who loves Freedom and Liberty Award: Robert Murray!

We have noticed that most awards in America today suffer horribly from Liberal Bias: the Academy Awards, the Tony Awards, the Oscar Awards, the Darwin Awards… and so many more.  All of these slant horribly and disgustingly toward a liberal agenda.

So, in order to unskew this bias, we have decided to start our own award:

The Most Patriotic Patriot who loves Freedom and Liberty Award

…brought to you by

This award will be granted, periodically, to someone who displays a truly outstanding manifestation of patriotism and conservative values. The recipient of the award will be presented with the above beautiful, elegant and artistic trophy in digital form.

The honor of being the first recipient of this award goes to: Robert Murray.

Robert Murray is the  head of Ohio coal company Murray Energy. Murray has shared his prayers to let everyone know how doomed we would be if we re-elected Obama. Murray has forced his employees to donate to Romney’s campaign. Murray forced his employees to attend a Romney rally. And now, just days after Obama is reelected, in a fit of righteous rage and religious inspiration, he has fired 156 coal employees in order to show his displeasure with the election result.

What a gigantic, enormous… patriot!

We tip our tri-corn hat to you, Murray.

Congratulations on being America’s very first ever recognized Most Patriotic Patriot who loves Freedom and Liberty!

Capital gains taxes have a liberal bias!

Capital Gains.

Everyone knows that lowering the capital gains tax is what causes job growth, economic prosperity, freedom, and happiness. After all, it just makes sense: the obvious way to make poor people less poor is to tax rich people less. Liberals want to increase capital gains taxes because they hate success, want to destroy the economy, and like to make angels cry.

How do we know that lowering capital gains taxes help to improve the economy?  Because the leaders of the Free World, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, have told us so.  As it was eloquently explained by Reuters, “Romney and Ryan say that lowering tax rates and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends, while letting huge fortunes pass untaxed to heirs, will boost economic growth and mean prosperity for all.”

Romney told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that his own 14 percent effective income tax rate in 2011 was fair because lower capital gains taxes are “the right way to encourage economic growth.” When Paul Ryan was asked to defend Mitt Romney‘s proposal that capital gains tax be lowered, he said this: “you want to have more capital that goes to more businesses, especially small businesses like this one, so more people can go back to work. That creates economic growth.”

It all makes complete sense, and they keep telling us that it’s true. There is no reason to doubt them.

Except along comes this stupid graph, above, showing that there seems to be absolutely no statistical relationship between capital gains tax and economic growth!

Liberal heathen and communist Len Burman has graphed capital gains rates and economic growth and found no relationship at all, even when looking for lagged influences of up to 5 years!



Obviously, if statistical correlation is contradicting the claims of wholesome upstanding citizens like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, then statistical correlation must be suffering from a liberal bias!!!


Graph Data Source: Len Burman Senate Testimony
Graph Found Via: The Washington Post

How to combat liberal CBO numbers

Liberal CBO Numbers

The radical left-wing propaganda-machine Communist Budget Office (CBO) regularly uses “numbers” to fool people into believing liberal talking-points. The above graph is a perfect example.

The above graph seems to suggest that eliminating tax breaks for the rich would reduce the deficit. This false impression is created by the fact that getting rid of tax breaks for the rich would decrease the size of the deficit.

If you are a good conservative, you are naturally befuddled by numbers like this, and they can cause some dizziness and confusion.  So, as a public service, we are here to tell you what to think and how to respond when someone puts numbers like this in front of you.

1) Getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts will not solve the problem. As you can see in this graph, the pale blue area is much much smaller than the dark blue area. This means that reducing tax breaks on the wealthy is just a stupid idea. I mean, if it won’t solve the problem completely, why do it at all?

2) Increasing taxes never reduces deficits. Never never never. Everyone knows this, because in the past there was this one time when Reagan cut taxes and revenue went up, and this proves beyond a doubt that taxes will never reduce the deficit.

3) Why do you hate freedom? Reducing the deficit by stealing money from hard-working billionaires and trillionaires simply isn’t the correct way to solve the problem. If you do that, they will get mad and take their cheesy-poofs and go home. And you don’t want that, now do you?

These are the top three most researched methods for combating numbers like those shown above. These tactics, or variations of them in one form or another, can be heard almost every day on conservative talk radio.

If you hear others, please feel free to share them with us here.


Graph Data Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Graph Found Via:

Investor uncertainty has a liberal bias!

Tax Uncertainty

Everybody knows that having a Democrat in the White House makes investors hoard their cash and destroy the economy. That is why it is critical that we elect a Republican into a White House as soon as possible, so that rich people can sigh a collective sigh of relief and start hiring people.

The logic is, of course, irrefutable, and it goes like this:

1) Democrats always want to raise taxes, even when they say they don’t.
2) Raising taxes makes job creators skittish, scared, and uncertain.
3) Job creators are like small, furry woodland creatures. They need to be soothed and kept safe. Raising taxes on them makes them angry.
4) Angry people don’t create jobs
5) Therefore, even the mere thought of increased taxes when a Democrat is president is enough to frighten the poor, frightened, skittish Job Creators into completely wrecking the economy.

How can anybody argue with that?

Anyway, all of this is obviously true.  So what is wrong with the above graph?

The above graph measures economic uncertainty based on the amount of money that is actually at risk due to changing tax laws, and plots it as a function of time.  On the graph, we have highlighted the economic uncertainty red during Republican presidencies and blue during Democratic presidencies.

Clearly there is something wrong with these numbers. If these numbers are to be believed, the greatest increases in economic uncertainty have happened during Republican presidencies, and economic uncertainty has generally remained flat during Democratic presidencies!


When numbers and data seem to contradict good, old conservative logic, there is obviously only one answer:  the numbers and data suffer from a liberal bias!!!!


graph data source: The Economic Policy Uncertainty Project
graph found via:

International Reading Tests have a liberal bias!

Biased Reading Scores

Sometimes you see a graph that just makes you want to say, “Excuse me, graph, but why do you hate America?” That’s what you should think when you see the above graph.

This graph shows the relationship between average reading scores for students (the vertical position) and the average pay of teachers (the horizontal position) and compares different countries.  The reading score is based on something called the “Programme for International Student Assessment” and the teacher pay is shown as a ratio of teacher salaries to the GDP per capita of the country they are in.

If we were to take this graph seriously–and I assure you that THAT is not going to happen–it would suggest that the United States not only pays teachers a lot less than other civilized countries but also our students are a lot more illiterate than those in other countries.  If you were an irrational Godless liberal, you might even think that there could be a causal relationship between these two things.


First of all, why should to trust the reading scores coming from people who don’t even know how to spell the word “program”?

Second of all, more spending on teachers means more socialism, which is why Korea is doing so well. You don’t want to give up your liberty for a stupid thing like literacy, do you? I thought not.

Finally, who cares if sissy countries like Finland have kids who can read? I bet we could beat them up. So there.

Clearly, this graph is just one more source of anti-American propaganda and liberal bias!!!!


Graph Data Source: OECD Analysis
Graph Found Via:



Mark Levin proves that unemployment is really 50%

Real Unemployment

Radical left-wing media organizations all over the country reported last week that unemployment in June 2012 was 8.2%.  This is a liberal lie, designed to make people think that the entire world isn’t about to collapse under the evil dictatorship that is the Obama presidency. Well, we are here to tell you that they are wrong, and the world is about to collapse, and it is all Obama’s fault.

More specifically, on Mark Levin’s radio show this past Friday, he outlined two very strong and rational arguments that prove that the 8.2% unemployment number is a lie:

First, Mark Levin very wisely said this: You don’t need a government agency to tell you how well the economy is doing. You can just look around you. Use your own eyes. Does everything look perfect to you? Is everyone happy? Obviously not! Therefore, there is no recovery. (These were not his exact words but that was the gist of his argument, and it makes sense to me.)

Second, Mark Levin sagely pointed out that the 8.2% number is a fiction that was invented by Democrats, and that it excludes people who are under employed, or part-time employed, or who have given up looking for work because they feel discouraged.  If you include people who are employed part time but wish they were employed full time, and you include people feel so unhappy that they have given up looking for work, then the number is actually 14.5%, and that is practically 15%.


But wait! There’s more.

Not only do we  agree with this line of reasoning, we do not think Mark Levin has gone far enough.

Using exactly the same logic that Mark Levin uses, we believe it is reasonable to include yet more people who have been irrationally excluded from the unemployment statistic.

After all, if it makes sense to include people who are working part time who could be working full time, then why not also include people who are working one job but could be working two jobs?

If you include people who feel discouraged about looking for work, why not also include people who are unhappy at the jobs that they have?

If you dig deeply enough, there are all kinds of groups that we can add to the “unemployment” statistic to make it higher more realistic!

Our team of researchers at has done an in-depth analysis using the “Mark Levin line of reasoning,” and have determined that if you include ALL unemployed people, under-employed people, part-time employed people, unhappily-employed people, people who could be working 2 jobs but actually are working only 1 job, and people who are employed but spend most of their time playing golf, and so on, then the REAL unemployment rate is more like 46.8%…. and that is nearly 50%!!!

Although Mark Levin has not actually made this specific argument, he is a smart man and we are sure he would agree with this line reasoning. We know what is in his heart.

So, why aren’t other media outlets reporting this disgraceful Obama unemployment rate of 50%?

Clearly, it must be because they have liberal bias!!!!!


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

Related Story: Mark Levin proves the debt is really 1 Quadrillion Dollars!!

Median family net worth has liberal bias!

Biased Wealth.

This graph presents this data in a very suspicious and biased way. By looking at this graph, you might get the impression that Obama’s policies have not been a disastrous war on job creators and have not been a huge burden on small businesses and people who are rich enough to call themselves “small businesses” for tax purposes.

If you look at this graph, you might come to the conclusion that the Obama recession has caused the wealth in all of the bottom 90% of income families to go down, but has caused the wealth in the top 10% of income families to actually increase. This might give you the weird impression that Obama does not have his boot on the neck of the successful. This might lead you to the erroneous conclusion that Obama has not completely annihilated the economic stability of the job-creator class. This might cause you to mistakenly suspect that Obama’s presidency hasn’t been a virtual apocalypse of businesses and successful business people.



Obviously, this graph presents this data in a needlessly confusing and complex way. There is simply no reason to break down these groups by income level.  That, after all, is class warfare.  Instead, the only graph that you should look at is this one:

Unbiased Graph

This graph simply combines all of the income groups together, as God intended, and shows how the overall median has changed over time.

This graph contains all of the information you really need: things were going up until Obama became president, and then things went down. That’s all you need to know.  Any more information than that will just expose you to liberal bias!!!!


Graph Source Data: Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances
Graph Found Via: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Shared prosperity has a liberal bias!

Unions and Economic Inequality

The bias in this graph is not with the data, but with the title. The actual data here is not biased, in fact: the data is great. It is wonderful. The actual data itself shows that conservatives are right about everything and that if only everyone adopted the conservative view then we would live in a perfect world.

What this graph clearly shows is that when union membership is high, people who work hard and do a good job in business are not rewarded as much as they could be. On the other hand, when union membership decreases, the people who work hard and do a good job in business are rewarded more for the wonderful, fantastic things that they do.

But the title and labels in the graph are horrifically biased, and skewed to somehow make it seem like success is actually bad.

THAT’S RIGHT I SAID IT!  Liberals think that success is bad.

The red line in the graph is labelled “share of income going to the top 10%.”  What it should really say is “the amount that we reward people for doing good deeds.”  Liberals want to use the extremely biased term “top 10%” to cause resentment and class warfare. But think about it: How did they get to be the top 10%?  By being successful, working hard, and being good at their jobs, obviously! Therefore, the label “top 10%” should be replaced with “awesome people who deserve lots of stuff.”

Moreover, the title of the graph uses the term “shared prosperity.” This is a nonsense term.  I suspect it is a  synonym for “communism” and “socialism” and “Hitler” and all of those other words that are essentially interchangeable. Cuba. Hip-hop Barbeque. You get the idea.

When people say “shared prosperity” they are trying to get you to think it is a good thing. Liberals who don’t think very hard about things see the word “share” and it makes them feel good, and they see the word “prosperity” and it makes them feel good, so they think “shared prosperity” is a good thing.

But you and I know better, don’t we? We know that anyone who “shares” their prosperity is just enabling lazy poor people to sit around and do nothing all day at the expense of the successful millionaires who actually deserve to have money.

Anyone who tells you anything else is just spewing liberal bias!!!!


Graph Data Source: Jon Melegrito’s analysis of Historical Statistics of the United States,, Piketty and Saez, 2003, and The World Top Incomes Database
Graph Found Via:


England has a liberal bias!

US vs. UK

This graph shows the impact of the Obama Recession in 2008 and 2009 on the GDP of both the United States and the United Kingdom (England). As you can see, both were hit hard by the economic collapse, and both have had only a very slight recovery.

However, you can also see that the recovery in the United States was much better than the recovery in England.

This is very weird and suspicious. England has put into place very conservative policies. They have cut back on government spending dramatically, and cut back on government regulation. All of this has been going on while Obama has gone on a wild government spending spree and increased government regulation by three million billion percent according to some sources.

So if Obama’s stimulus and socialist policies are bad for the economy, and cutting costs is supposed to help the economy to grow, then why is England not recovering faster than the United States?


I will tell you why. Liberals, who hate America, want you to believe that Obama’s stimulus and spending are what is causing our recovery to be better than the recovery in England; but nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is, Americans are just better than English people. According to the proven principle of American Exceptionalism, the U.S. economy should always recover faster than the U.K. economy. In fact, I’m sure that if it weren’t for Obama’s socialist stimulus and government regulation, that yellow line would have increased even more!

Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously just hates America, and is filled with liberal bias!!!!!


graph source: Thompson Reuters Datastream, April 2012
graph found via: The Rachel Maddow Show


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