Stupid free market prefers elitist liberal snobs. Boo.

Returns on higher education

Returns on higher educationAll good conservatives know that higher education is for snobs, and universities are liberal indoctrination camps. So why is the free market rewarding education so much?

If you listen to conservative talk radio, as God intended, then you surely have heard the message over and over again: nobody needs a college education. College education is pointless and a waste of money.  College is just a place where liberals go to masturbate. Real men get by on muscle and the Bible alone. And so on.

A number of leading conservative politicians have even said that they want to abolish the Department of Education, on the grounds that it is a waste of taxpayer money to educate people when all a person really needs to succeed is hard work, a clever idea or two, and some magical libertarian fairy dust.

But while it’s true that anyone can succeed in America (GO USA!), it’s also true that most people don’t succeed in America (THANKS OBAMA).  A true believer in Conservative Principles knows that when people don’t succeed, it isn’t because of some pansy thing like “education”, it’s just because they are lazy and/or black, and therefore deserve to fail.

Unfortunately, although this Conservative Principle is obviously true, the above graph seems to contradict it.  In fact, according to the above graph, the Free Market in the United States actually rewards people with higher educations at a higher rate of return than almost anywhere else in the world.



Clearly, there is only one possible explanation:

College really is pointless and for liberal snobs, but the above graph simply suffers from some kind of liberal bias!!!!

What other explanation could there possibly be?


graph data source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
graph found via: TaxProf Blog

Reagan tax cuts had a liberal bias!

Reagan was a liberal.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is one of Reagan’s crowning achievements. Widely known as one of his two biggest tax cuts, every good conservative knows that this heroic act of Ronald Reagan simplified the tax code, lowered taxes, and therefore lead to prosperity, success, wealth, sunshine, unicorns, and basically has been the root cause of every single good thing that happened in the 1990’s.  Some people say that Clinton is responsible for the budget surplus during Bill Clinton’s term as President… but we know better! It was the 1986 Reagan Tax Cuts!

Yet somehow… something seems very wrong with this graph.

According to this graph, in the years following the enactment of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the effective tax rate (that is, the percentage of income actually paid by people, after all loopholes, breaks, deductions, and other fancy stuff has been applied) of the bottom 80% of income earners (red, green, blue, and yellow lines) went down… but the effective tax rate of the top 20% of income earners actually went up!

How is this possible? Could it be that somehow, in some unknown sinister way, Reagan actually increased taxes on the rich??

It turns out that sneaky little things like an increase in the Capital Gains tax, a strengthening of the Alternative Minimum tax, and the closing of loopholes and deductions are responsible for this “effective tax rate” increase.  The end result was that although the official tax rates for the richest people in the country went down, the wealthiest people in the country ended up actually paying a higher percentage of their income as tax.

This kind of graph can lead to all kinds of trouble.

For example, an evil liberal might look at this graph and say: “Obama has proposed closing loopholes so that the wealthy pay more in taxes. If Reagan did it, then why don’t conservatives want Obama to do it?”

Or, an anti family, anti-values liberal might look at this graph and say: “Obviously, the wealth of the Reagan years didn’t trickle down, but was actually taken from rich people through increased taxes!”

Or, a nature-worshipping, un-American liberal might look at this graph and say: “This shows that Reagan actually never decreased taxes on the wealthy, as is usually claimed. His policies were exactly the same types of tax changes that Republicans are now calling class warfare… now that Obama wants to do it.”


Clearly, this graph cannot represent reality.  Instead, it is another example of statistics that have been infected with liberal bias!!!


Graph Data Source: Econ Data Us
Graph Found Via: US Budget Blog

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:


Being a conservative Republican makes you rich!

Sciencey Graphs

Liberal elitists are always saying that conservatives don’t understand science or history or other things that don’t matter, but here is a scientific study that we do understand and it is sure to make the liberals cry.

Everybody knows how science research works:You find something that you either love or hate that you want to make a point about, then you find a relationship between that thing and something that is either good or bad, and you assume that the first thing caused the second thing.

This is how all science is done. You don’t believe me? Let’s look at some examples.

Scientists find that children who use Facebook a lot also drink alcohol more. These scientists are parents who hate Facebook because they don’t understand it. And children drinking is bad. So, BAM! Using Facebook caused the drinking.

Another example? Scientists find that girls who read fashion magazines also worry a lot about their appearance. Scientists are liberal feminists, so they hate fashion magazines. And children worrying is bad, so BAM! Reading the magazine caused them to worry about their appearance.

See? That’s science.

Using this exact same widely accepted scientific method, we can conclude from the above graphs that being a Conservative Republican causes people to get rich.

As you can see in the graph, for most groups the distribution across income is fairly flat. With liberal Democrats, liberal Republicans, and moderate Independents it’s most obvious: there are about just as many low income people as high income people.  But among conservative Republicans, there is a huge difference: there are massively more rich than poor people in this group!

Obviously, being a conservative Republican makes you rich. (Interestingly, being a conservative Democrat makes you poor, because this combination is obviously a crime against nature.)

This is solid scientific method. If anyone comes at you with some kind of weird mumbo-jumbo about “correlation” and “causation” just remember: all that talk is just a bunch of liberal bias….

source: The 2000 and 2004 data are from the National Annenberg Election Survey; 2008 is from the Pew Research pre-election surveys.

Upward mobility has a liberal bias!

Biased Upward Mobility

This graph has appeared on the radical ultra-left wing website “The New York Times” and is a perfect example of facts that are quite simply wrong.

According to this graph, not only do countries that have more wealth inequality have less upward mobility, but America has a super-low amount of mobility, less than other countries!

This is obviously ridiculous. Let me present the actual facts:

1) Rush Limbaugh, who is never wrong, has said, “There’s so many myths. The income gap getting wider — it isn’t. The rich getting richer — they aren’t. You know, people move in and out of all these financial categories constantly. They’re all fluid.” Therefore the idea that we do not have social mobility is just wrong.

2) Shelby Steele, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said “There must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history.” I have never heard of this person but it sounds right to me.

3) Dick Morris, Fox News political analyst, has explained that even if there are more poor people now than in the past, they are different poor people because all of the old poor people have moved up! That’s social mobility.

So, obviously this fiction that the United States does not have good upward mobility is just a lie. The above graph is therefore just another example of facts and numbers showing a liberal bias!!!!

Source: Alan Krueger, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
: Paul Krugman at the New York Times

References to Conservative Facts can all be verified through:

American Exceptionalism! Yay!

Exceptional Income Growth

For a change of pace, today we thought we would highlight a graph that has not been infected with liberal bias: income growth rates under Democratic and Republican presidents. This graph shows reality conforming with Ideological Truth: under the socialist Democrats who don’t care about motivation or effort, everyone is rewarded the same (or the Job Creators are rewarded less!); under free-market liberty freedom Republicans, the job creators are rewarded more for the wonderful work that they do to make society great.

This graph has somehow miraculously been spun as somehow bad by the liberal media, but in a good and righteous conservative world: this is graph represents what America, liberty, freedom and happiness are all about!

source: Unequal Democracy, by L. M. Bartels
via:  Ezra Klein

The private sector has a liberal bias!

Private Sector Liberal Bias

Everyone knows that higher education is over-run by liberals. Yet somehow, the private sector pays people who have advanced degrees WAY more than people who don’t. The private sector actually rewards people for having left-wing college and graduate degrees even more than the public sector does!

This is clear evidence that the private sector has a liberal bias!!!

Source: Current Population Survey-IPUMS, 2010
Via:  Mother Jones Magazine

Middle-class income has a liberal bias!

Liberal Middle Class Income

It is a well-known and highly proven fact that unions destroy the free market system and make angels cry. States that do not have unions are more free and prosperous in every way.

So how is it possible that middle-class income actually was higher when union membership was higher, and has gone down as union membership has gone down?


It is obvious what is happening here. Middle class income is engaged in a conspiracy with liberal socialist union members to make good, freedom-loving capitalists look bad. This is clearly a case of the middle-class incomes having liberal bias!!!!


Source: Center for American Progress
Via: Rachel Maddow Blog