The Obama economic recovery is the strongest in the world, according to liberal statistics

Thanks Obama for the strong economic recovery!

If you listen to conservative talk radio and Fox News, you know that our economy right now is TERRIBLE.  The economy originally started to tank in December of 2007, because of Barack Obama, and it has never fully recovered. On literally a daily basis, you can hear Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and other conservative commentators referring to our current economy as “bleak”, and “stagnant”, and “horrific”, and “crashed”, and “dead”, and other words that all mean the same thing.

Naturally, whenever conservative commentators talk about how TERRIBLE the United States economy currently is, they never miss an opportunity to point out that the reason it is terrible is Barack Obama.

Yet somehow, liberally biased “statistics” tell a different story.  In fact, according to the graph above, the United States economy has recovered from the world-wide 2007-2008 recession more than any other country in the world, and the only country in the world that showed faster improvement (by marginal amounts) was Germany.

But how can this possibly be, when Obama has been the worst King of America since Satan was King of America in the year 2000 B.C.?

Obviously, these statistics must be wrong, and biased, and/or fabricated by the Illuminati.

The current U.S. economy is terrible, it is horrible, it is the worst economy ever… and if you think otherwise, you clearly just have a LIBERAL BIAS!!!!!!

How can the economy be good when some people hate their jobs, huh?

Data Source: Statistical Office of the European Communities; CEA calculations
Graph Source: AATTP.org

What does a -2.9% annual GDP growth rate for Q1 2014 really mean?

Fox News Explains GDP Shrinking

The above picture, from Fox News, shows the correct way to report on the recent finding that the national gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 2.9% (annualized) during the first quarter of 2014. Specifically, this picture is the correct way to report on this finding because it does not distract or confuse people with things like history, comparisons to prior examples, or too many data points.  Plus, you have a frowning unattractive man depicted next to the gigantic negative number: so you know that things must be bad!!!!!

Indeed, the frowning unattractive man also tells you what you should believe about the explanation of this number: “This is obviously a result of an administration, five years of policies… high taxation, high regulation, high spending and high debt.”

How could he possibly be wrong?

Now, some liberals out there will present this same information in a way that is clearly liberally biased. For example, they will show you this graph:

GDP changes by quarter over several years

The problem with this graph is that includes too much information, and it might confuse people. It could even lead to uncomfortable questions, like:

“If a -2.9% growth rate is obviously the fault of President Obama’s policies, then which of President Bush’s policies are to blame for the -8.1% growth rate in 2008?”

Or worse:

“If a -2.9% growth rate is a clear sign that all of liberal philosophy is a total failure, then does that mean that Bush was also completely incompetent and all of his economic philosophies are also total failures?”

Clearly, this kind of thinking simply will not do!

Liberals have also been disseminating this second graph, which shows that although GDP was unusually low in the first quarter of 2014, other economic measures were up. For example, in the following graph we see that the total aggregate hours worked by private-sector nonsupervisory workers 1.4 percent, which is usually associated with higher growth:

Real GDP vs Private Sector Jobs

Showing this graph clearly can cause a liberal bias, because it can lead people to believe that some aspects of the economy have been improving despite that fact that Obama is OMFG KENYAN MUSLIM SOCIALIST HITLER.

If you look carefully, you will see that the above graph includes three data points where the GDP value is just as bad or worse, but the jobs value is worse than the first quarter 2014: these are the points on the same level or below the red point on the vertical axis, but to the left of the red point.

These points all occurred under George Bush as well, once again leading to the question: were those points also “obviously a result of an administration” under George W. Bush of ridiculous economic, and domestic and foreign policy failures?

No, these types of graphs clearly are not what people should be seeing.

People need to be sheltered from the burden of getting too much information, and asking questions. Therefore we applaud Fox News for not falling into that trap. That, after all, is how numbers and statistics can lead to LIBERAL BIAS!!!!

 

The Heritage Foundation embarrasses itself with numbers… again.

problems measuring austerity

problems measuring austerity

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t know what “austerity” means or how to measure it, and just can’t seem to understand how numbers actually work. This is causing some trouble for a party that doesn’t want to be seen as the “party of stupid”.

We’ve written before about how the Heritage Foundation regularly makes predictions that are wildly inaccurate, and normally we are perfectly content to blame liberally-biased “facts” rather than the good conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.  However, in light of recent evidence that Young Republicans don’t want to be part of “a stupid party”, we think it’s time to put our foot down and ask the important question: Heritage Foundation, what the hell is wrong with you?

The most recent topic is that of austerity.  Liberals have been claiming that the conservative notion that “austerity will fix everything” is debunked by the problems in Europe.  “Europe has austerity,” these evil liberals will say, “And their economic situation has gotten worse. That proves you are wrong, Q.E.D, neener-neener.”

The most recent fad going around the internet has been for conservatives to respond by saying, “What Europe has done isn’t really austerity, because they increased taxes instead of cutting spending.  Increasing taxes is what is causing their problems. Real, true, manly austerity is based on cutting spending.”

OK, so they don’t usually use the word “manly”, but you get the idea.

It is important to realize where this idea comes from: The Heritage Foundation.  They have been peddling this idea for a long time now, and have most recently summarized it nicely in the congressional testimony by Salim Furth (PDF).  Instead of “manly”, Dr. Furth uses the term “classic austerity”, presumably because he is aware that the word “austerity” by itself refers to

Definition of austerity

So by adding the word “classic”, he can fudge this a little bit and claim that tax increases are the “wrong” kind of austerity, because they are not “classic”. Or whatever.

The problem is, no matter how you define “austerity”, the Heritage Foundation claim that Europe hasn’t been implementing austerity is wrong.  Dr. Furth claims that European countries have not been decreasing their deficits, but then presents a table showing that their deficits as a percentage of GDP in each year (left side table, above).  In other words, countries that cut their deficits would still show an increase if their GDP dropped by a larger amount.  When the change in the deficit was measured as a percentage of a constant GDP (right side graph, above), the United States, Britain, France, and Spain–all showing increasing deficit in the Heritage Foundation table–can all be seen to have actually decreased their deficits.

But what is even worse is this: even if you allow the Heritage Foundation their notion of “classic” austerity, most of the countries in Europe were still implementing austerity.  According to the OECD, when you compare what percentage of the budget cuts were due to spending cuts versus tax increases in each country, the majority of the countries closed their spending gaps mostly with spending cuts:

EOCD Austerity chart

So it comes down to this: Heritage Foundation, you need to get your act together.  In the past we have been more than happy to defend you on the  grounds that numbers and statistics have a liberal bias.  However, it’s 2013 now…. if you can’t manage to simply get the numbers right in your arguments, you will never shake that reputation of being the “party of stupid”.

 

For more discussion: Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity (WonkBlog)

graphs data sources: OECD
graphs found viaThe Washington Post

related article: Liberal facts conspire to embarrass the Heritage Foundation

European austerity weirdly contradicts conservative values

Eurozone austerity

Eurozone austerity

“If we tighten our belts it will lead to growth,” Rand Paul has said. “Reducing the deficit always makes economies boom,” Paul Ryan has said. So why is this graph showing otherwise?

Of course we have not just heard this from our conservative hero, Rand Paul Ryan. We have also heard this from great intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  They all tell us the same thing: deep cuts in spending will balance the budget and instantly lead to an enormous explosion in hiring, productivity, GDP, puppies, rainbows, and oral sex.  In other words: it will solve all problems in the world.

Weirdly, the above graph shows that in European countries, there is a negative relationship between the degree of austerity they implemented, and their GDP growth.  More specifically: across Europe, the more dedicated a country was to cuts and austerity, the more their GDP dropped.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, STUPID GRAPH? DIDN’T YOU GET THE MEMO?

When statistics like these dare to contradict the talking points of our great lord and leader, Rand Paul Ryan, there is only one conclusion we can come to:  the statistics must have a liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database
graph found via: Paul Krugman, New York Times

related article: European unemployment weirdly contradicts conservative values

Obama takes more vacations than any modern president

Obama The Vacationer

Obama The Vacationer

Fox News claims that Obama has taken more vacations than any recent president. After a LOT of effort, we have finally found a way to prove them correct.

We have to admit, it was tough. After all, during Obama’s first term he was on vacation 131 days, while George W. Bush averaged 510 vacation days per term while in office.

Days Vacation per term (ref)
Ronald Reagan 242
George HW Bush 543
Bill Clinton 76
George W Bush 510
Obama (Term 1) 131

But as good conservatives, we have a strong interest in proving that Fox News is always right about everything.  So we started to dig.

ARGUMENT 1: Obama shouldn’t be vacationing when the economy is bad! He should be working!

It is true that the GDP growth under Obama has been much worse than it was under George W. Bush. When GDP growth is low, Presidents deserve less vacation time. That’s just common sense.

So we can create a weighting system that takes this into account.  Let’s look at the number of vacation days each president took per term per the annual percent GDP growth during that term.

Days Vacation
per term
% GDP Growth
(ref)
Vacation Days
per % GDP Growth
Ronald Reagan 242 3.3 73.33
George HW Bush 543 1.9 285.79
Bill Clinton 76 3.7 20.54
George W Bush 510 1.7 300.00
Obama (Term 1) 131 0.8 163.75

As you can see, this raises Obama’s “effective vacation days” (from 131 to 163), and lowers George W. Bush’s (from 510 to 300)

However, it isn’t enough.  George W. Bush still took more vacation days than Barack Obama.

ARGUMENT 2: Obama shouldn’t be vacationing when the debt is so big! That’s wasteful spending!

The Federal Debt is six trillion dollars more under Obama than it was under George W. Bush. That’s got to be taken into account somehow.When the debt is higher, presidents should take fewer vacation days. That’s just common sense.

So in addition to dividing the vacation days by the percent annual GDP growth, we can also multiply our “effective vacation days” calculation by the federal debt at the end of the president’s term.

Vacation Days
per % GDP Growth
End Of Term Debt
x 10 trill $ (ref)
Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
Ronald Reagan 73.33 $0.27 19.80
George HW Bush 285.79 $0.42 120.03
Bill Clinton 20.54 $0.57 11.71
George W Bush 300.00 $1.07 321.00
Obama (Term 1) 163.75 $1.64 268.55

This helps a little bit, but unfortunately it is not enough.  Using this new adjusted “effective vacation days”, Obama (268 days) is now getting closer to George Bush (321 days), but George Bush still has more vacation days than Obama.

ARGUMENT 3: I’m a constitutional originalist. Which is really code for…

Look, we’re not proud of this.  Really, we’re not.

But we’ve got to find some way of proving that Obama has taken more vacation days than George W. Bush.  Otherwise, we might have to admit that Fox News spews completely false B.S. on prime time television.

We tried all kinds of other factors, even beyond the two mentioned above.  Nothing seemed to work.

Even when we took into account the debt, the economy, unemployment, number of golf games, and even approval ratings, nothing was able to make Barack Obama seem to have taken more vacations than George W. Bush!

 

But luckily, there is the constitution.

Conservatives love the constitution: the original constitution.  And in the original constitution there is a very specific number associated with people like Barack Obama.  That number is three-fifths.

The number appears in Article I, section 2 of the constitution, and although it was superseded by the fourteen amendment, most conservatives know that that’s totally the least important amendment.

In the interest of delicacy we will simply call this number, three-fifths, the “Constitutional Coefficient”, or C-Factor.

We can include the C-Factor into our calculation of “effective vacation days”.  After all, if George Washington only wanted Barack Obama to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the census, we can only assume he would only want him to take 3/5 of a regular president’s vacation days, as well.

Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
Constitutional
Coefficient
(“C-Factor”)
10 x Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
per C-Factor
Ronald Reagan 19.80 1 19.80
George HW Bush 120.03 1 120.03
Bill Clinton 11.71 1 11.71
George W Bush 321.00 1 321.00
Obama (Term 1) 268.55 0.60 447.58

Eureka!  This solves the problem: using this calculation, Barack Obama has taken more vacation days than George W. Bush.

CONCLUSION

Fox News is correct: Barack Obama has taken more vacation days than any president of anything ever in the entire history of time. The above graph and table prove this point.

When liberals say that George Bush has taken more vacation days, that is because they are not using the special, adjusted “effective vacation days” measurement, which has been corrected to take into account important factors like GDP growth, Federal Debt, and–of course–the Constitution.

And if they aren’t willing to include important things like the economy and the constitution, well… that can only mean one thing: they are guilty of liberal bias!!!

 

 

Obama Recovery: fewest full moons since 1970

Obama: devastating for full moons

Obama: devastating for full moons

Under Obama, there have only been 42 full moons, while other post-recession periods typically saw 50 or more full moons. It is clear that the Obama administration has been devastating for full moons.

Your first reaction might be to think that this is a silly claim and a silly graph.  But rest assured, it is not!

Why not?

Because it follows the exact formula that is used by the following graph, which was produced by a good conservative website called CNS News.  CNS News has the stated goal of combating liberal bias in the media, and therefore would never ever produce a graph that was rooted in silliness.

GDP Recovery

In this graph from CNS news, they mark out the U.S. recessions with yellow bars.  Between these, they plot the total amount of GDP growth that occurred during those between-recession intervals of time.

That may be worth repeating. The blue bars do not represent that annual GDP growth during the between-recession periods.  They represent the total GDP growth during the between-recession periods.

That is why, you may notice, the bars that are wider have a general tendency to be taller: more time (width) means more time for the GDP to grow, which means more total economic growth.

They also strategically remove the blue bar from the brief recovery in from July 1980 to July 1981. Because that recovery was so short, the total growth would have been even lower than Obama’s blue bar. And we can’t have that.

We at LiberalBias.com are always interested in the newest techniques and strategies for removing liberal bias from graphs. Thus, we have used this analytical template and applied it to full moons…. and amazingly, the graphs look almost the same!

 

That’s what I call a solid analytical strategy: a way to produce a graph that makes Obama look bad no matter what you are graphing.

A hat-tip to you, CNS news.

Now make sure to tell all of your friends that Obama has, in fact, been devastating to full moons.

Look how few full moons there have been during this so-called “Obama recovery”!

It’s outrageous.

 

related story: Obama causes lightning, cats and suicide

 

GDP Wars: Liberals vs Conservatives

A Tale of Two Graphs

A Tale of Two GraphsThese two graphs that present exactly the same data. Yet it should be easy to see that one of these shows the Enlightened Truth, and the other one has Liberal Bias.

Both of these graphs show changes in Real GDP over time from the early 1990’s  through 2012. The only difference is that the left graph groups the data by Presidential Term of office, and the right graph shows each year’s data separately.

Notice that the left graph, which shows fewer data points by grouping things according to presidential term, very clearly highlights the Conservative Truth that Obama is a terrible anti-American socialist who is destroying America.

The right graph, which shows more data points, just muddies up this conclusion. In fact, the right graph makes it seem like Obama’s term opened with a deep recession that began at the end of Bush’s last term, and that for most of Obama’s term the GDP growth was at the same levels that it was throughout most of Bush’s time in office. This graph does not adequately illustrate that Obama is a socialist Muslim who hates America.

Ladies and gentlemen, the lesson to be learned here is clear: When in doubt, give people less information.

Giving people too much detail is just plain old confusing, and can lead to all sorts of liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
graph 1 source
: investors.com
graph 2 source: Eye On Housing

Breitbart.com has liberal bias!

Breitbart.com loves taxes!

Breitbart.com loves taxes!
Breitbart.com needs to get their act together. While all other respectable and unbiased news agencies are reporting that there is no recovery, everything is terrible, and Obama is to blame, Breitbart.com is straying from the path and reporting good economic news.

Look at these disgusting socialist-sounding headlines recently appearing on Breitbart.com:

And check out some of these quotes from the articles:

Two key drivers of growth improved last quarter: Consumer spending increased at a faster pace. And businesses invested more in equipment and software.

In addition, homebuilders are stepping up construction to meet rising demand. That could generate more construction jobs.

And home prices are rising steadily. That tends to make Americans feel wealthier and more likely to spend. Housing could add as much as 1 percentage point to economic growth this year, some economists estimate.

Auto sales reached their highest level in five years in 2012 and are expected to keep growing this year. That’s boosting production and hiring at U.S. automakers and their suppliers.

Some recent signs suggest that the job market is holding steady and may even improve a bit. The average number of people seeking unemployment aid each week in the past month is near a four-year low.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU, BREITBART.COM??

 

Breitbart.com is LIBERAL BIASWhat originally started as a good, solid, Jesus-loving, xenophobic, union-bashing organization has clearly become infiltrated with some kind of liberal conspiracy or plot or disease or something.

So, just in case you have been tainted by reading their misleading headlines, let me cleanse your brain with a reminder of the cuddly and comforting conservative truth.

Bill O’Reilly, who is always right about everything, was doing an interview with some left-wing lunatic. Here you can hear O’Reilly explaining calmly and rationally all of the facts: the economy is not improving, it is bad, there is no recovery, it is all the president’s fault, and the 60% of people who like the president are therefore obviously morons and left-wing loons:

How can Breitbart.com disagree with this obvious wisdom? It is clear that, despite their occasionally racist headlines, Breitbart.com must be LIBERAL!!!!

We have added the appropriate speech bubble to indicate this fact.

Liberal statistics predict no effect of tax cuts on economic growth

Top tax rates and average growth

Earlier this week, we reported that liberal statistics were refusing to show that tax hikes destroy the stock market. Well, they are at it again: this time, statistics are maliciously showing that cutting taxes does not lead to economic growth!

This graph shows countries that have implemented policies of cutting the top marginal tax rates over the 30 or so years.  It compares the amount of the tax cut with the percentage of of GDP growth arising after the tax cut.

Now, any good conservative knows that more tax cuts for the rich always, always, always lead to more economic growth no matter what.  That’s just intuitively obvious, and we hear it on Fox News over and over again, therefore it cannot be wrong.

SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH THESE DUMB COMMUNIST STATISTICS?

Somehow, this graph is showing that there is no relationship between the size of the tax cut on the top income earners, and the amount of GDP growth that follows!

One of two things is possible: either tax cuts on top income earners really don’t have much of an effect on economic growth compared to the wide variety of other things that can impact a country’s economy…… or, these statistics are simply skewed by some kind of mysterious liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva (2011), “Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities“, CEPR Discussion Paper 8675, December.
graph found via: voxeu.org

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?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU STUPID ENGLAND? WHY ARE YOU NOT RECOVERING?

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

 

Obama destroys foreign countries!

Foreign GDP

The graph above shows the effects of Obama’s first two years in office on the economic growth of various countries. Some people might be befuddled into thinking that the overall effect has been good, because many of the lines seem to be going up, but do not be fooled!!!

There are a few hidden points of critical importance in these graphs that you need to pay attention to:

  1. Most of the lines with positive slopes are little European countries that are basically like extra states owned by America anyway: Italy, France, UK, Germany, Japan, and so on. These are all being helped not by Obama’s policies but by the incredible resilience of the American spirit.
  2. The two lines that are decreasing are small, poor defenseless countries that nobody has ever heard of: Azerbajan and the Kyrgyz Republic. Now I think it is important that someone asks,

    WHY ARE YOU DESTROYING THESE COUNTRIES, OMABA?

    His policies have obviously been having a detrimental effect since he took office in 2009. Why is nobody in the mainstream media talking about this?

  3. The two countries that are doing the best are Russia, which has the largest increase from 2009 to 2010, and China, which has the highest growth overall. This is an obvious sign that Obama’s foreign policies are helping communism and preparing us to turn into a communist state.

If you want to make sure that people only see the important data on the above graph, and do not get distracted by irrelevant details, make sure they see only this graph:

Foreign GDP

That is the only way you can avoid any liberal bias!!!!!

source: TheGlobalEconomy.com

Economic growth has a liberal bias!

Liberal Economic Indicators

There is a sinister plot afoot.

Is it just a coincidence that two of the most major economic indicators, GDP and employment, were higher when Clinton raised taxes and lower when Bush cut them? Despite the fact that everybody knows that raising taxes destroys the economy and cutting taxes is the pathway to prosperity?

This graph makes it pretty clear that there is some partisan shenanigans going on!  It’s obvious that these economic indicators are colluding with liberals to create the illusion that tax increases are good for the economy. Hands-down, an obvious sign of liberal bias!!!!

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Via
: The Long Goodbye

The GDP has a liberal bias!

Liberal GDP

Looking at the last 8 completed presidential terms, the average annual change in GDP when a Democrat has been in office has been 3%, while the average annual change in GDP when a Republican has been in office has only been 2.5%.

How is this possible, when everybody knows that conservatives are the ones who know how to make the economy work and liberals only know how to make people less free?

This obviously demonstrates that the Gross Domestic Product suffers from a liberal bias!!!

Source: Budget of the United States Government
Via: Wikipedia