Romney’s tax plan for middle America

Misleading Romney Tax Graph

This graph is designed to scare people. Our goal at Liberal Bias is to show true, wholesome conservatives how to read a graph like this so that it does not upset you too much.

Liberals will point to the left 5 bars of this graph, and say, “Look, Romney will raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 per year!”

Your response should be: “Why are you engaging in class warfare? When you divide people up by talking about rich people and poor people, you are just dividing America. You should just treat every individual as a citizen and stop trying to divide us!”

In that way, you can ignore the left 5 bars.

Liberals will point to the right 2 bars of this graph, and say, “Look, Romney is giving huge breaks to people making more than $500,000 per year! How is that fair?”

Your response should be: “Why do you hate success?  Haven’t these people suffered enough, putting their skill and sweat  and tears into making a successful business? They should be rewarded for how awesome they are!”

In that way, you can ignore the right 2 bars.

The only bar you SHOULD be looking at is the $200,000 – $500,000 per year bar.  Those are the people who Romney has defined as middle class.

And as you can clearly see: his plan lowers taxes on the middle class.

Anyone who tells you any differently is just spreading liberal bias!!!!


Graph found via:


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

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

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