US deficit to hit $583 billion in 2014. Obama’s fault.

US deficit to hit 583 billion. Obama's fault.

As Dick Cheney taught us during the Bush years, “deficits don’t matter.” And Bush and Cheney showed us just how much they didn’t matter by taking Bill Clinton’s useless surplus and–thanks to two wars, massive, unfunded tax cuts, and one huge crash/big-bank-bailout later–turning it into a healthy $1.41 trillion deficit.

In just five years, Obama has taken the Bush-Cheney deficit and shrunk it by an incredible $827 billion to just $583 billion in 2014. (Fox News has the full report:

Clearly, Obama didn’t get the memo that the only thing that can save us is more wars and more tax cuts for the rich.

Instead, he’s killed Bin Laden, ended foreign wars, brought healthcare to more than 20 million, created 9.9 million jobs in a record 53-month streak of job growth. And to top it all, the economy is now growing at a 4% rate.

He’s done it all with out any help from the GOP. No wonder Republicans are mad at him.

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:

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:

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



Numerical Deficit

People vote on reality.

This graph proves that the Federal Deficit is getting bigger. Anyone who disagrees therefore hates freedom and democracy, and clearly has a liberal bias.

According to this graph, 62% of the people voted to believe that the deficit is getting bigger, 28% voted to believe that it is roughly the same, and only 6% voted to believe that the deficit is shrinking. By a clear majority, the American people have decided that  the deficit is increasing.  In a representative government like the United States, that means they must be right.

Numerical DeficitNow, if you are weak-willed or easily confused, you might point to other graphs that seem to show the numerical value of the deficit decreasing every year since 2009.   From that, you might be fooled into believing that the deficit is not increasing.

But saying stuff like that is to completely disrespect the power of the people.  If someone says that the deficit is “actually” decreasing and that 90% of the people are “wrong”, you need to respond by saying:


Then you will have obviously won the argument.

As Mitt Romney’s noble and glorious presidential campaign said: we will not allow our beliefs to be dictated by fact-checkers!


graphs found via: Steve Benen, MaddowBlog (graph  1) (graph 2)

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%

Federal spending graph refuses to cooperate with GOP agenda

Spending and revenue


Spending and revenue

With graphs like this floating around the internet, it is very very difficult for our Friends in the House to justify crashing the economy like they want to do. Obviously, this graph is part of a liberal plot.

The problem with this graph, as you can see clearly above, is that it shows that things are improving.

What is worse, they are improving in the most un-conservative way. It’s one thing that federal revenue has been increasing as a percent of GDP for nearly Obama’s entire first term in office. That we could probably explain away using phrases like “the resilience of the American people” and “American exceptionalism” and so on.

But as you can see, there is a bigger problem. Federal spending has been steadily decreasing as a percent of GDP over the same period of time!


Anyone who listens to the radio knows that Obama has been throwing our economy completely out of control with all of his spending. Anyone who listens to the radio knows that spending is the biggest problem in the history of the universe times a gagillion. Anyone who listens to the radio knows that as long as Socialist Obama is in office, spending will continue to destroy the lives of innocent Americans…

….which is why the House of Representatives MUST crash the economy and force us to default on our debt payments.

They are doing it to save us from the evil Obama Spending Spree.

At least, that’s what we hear on the radio. This point has been repeated over and over again.  The logic is completely irrefutable:

1) Obama is constantly increasing spending and will never stop or do anything to help the economy
2) Therefore, the only way possible to help the economy is through radical action, like refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

This argument sounds good, right? It completely justifies the House Republicans threatening total economic disaster, because that is THE ONLY WAY SPENDING WILL EVER DECREASE!!!!!

But this graph is not cooperating. According to this graph, spending has already been decreasing, as a percent of GDP, slowly and steadily for the last three years.

Honestly, people better stop circulating this graph. It’s obviously filled with liberal bias. You wouldn’t want to give people the idea that radical upheaval of our entire financial system isn’t justified, now would you?

I thought not.


graph data source: BEA, Treasury
graph found via:

BREAKING NEWS: The debt ceiling crisis is finally over!

Debt Ceiling Choose-Your-Own Adventure!

Since everyone is so eager to report breaking news before they actually know any facts, we decided we may as well report on the debt ceiling deal now. After all, we already know what we’ll say… no matter what happens.

Debt Ceiling Choose-Your-Own Adventure!

The Debt Ceiling Crisis is Finally Over!

After months of speculation and hand-wringing, the wait is finally over. During this crisis period, markets, consumers, and business owners have all been reacting to the economic uncertainty with fear and anxiety. The American people have looked toward Washington and seen a complete fiasco of incompetence, and a government paralyzed with indecision. So although there are many people who are unhappy with the end results, we can all now finally relax with the knowledge that—at least for a while—the question of how the debt ceiling will be handled has been answered.

TO CONTINUE, ANSWER THIS QUESTION: Was the debt ceiling raised?



Remember, no matter what ends up happening: you saw it reported here first!

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:

What did Obama really spend? The shocking truth.

Unbiased Federal Spending Growth

Liberal Obama Spends Liberal Money

This has been the single most debated political graph on the web in the last month. Originally appearing on Market Watch and then picked up by Forbes, the graph soon was spread like the angry spores of a liberal biological weapon across the entire internet. According to irrational and easily-fooled liberals, this graph shows that government spending has increased less under Obama than under any previous president going all the way back to Eisenhower.

It would just be too exhausting and boring to go through every single argument that has been made about this graph. So just to give a few examples:

Newsbusters points out: Obama’s low number is based partly on the CBO’s so-called “baseline projection” which assumes that Obama will unfairly break the backs of small-business owners by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire.

Newbusters also points out that Obama voted for the Bush Stimulus Program when he was a Senator and therefore the entire 2009 budget should be considered Obama’s fault.

A blog at makes the same points that the Newsbusters article makes. In fact, many of the actual sentences are identical in both articles. I’m sure this isn’t because one site plagiarized the other, but is simply because great conservative minds think alike.  Exactly. Alike.

You also have blogs and other sites pointing out that the graph is misleading because it clearly says that it is showing you the “growth in spending” but some people might believe that it represents “total spending.” Even though there isn’t really any evidence that anyone misunderstood the graph this way, it could be misunderstood that way and is therefore obviously a big fat lie.

All of these are excellent arguments, of course, and are in no way refuted by any of the detailed statistical analyses that can be found on radically biased websites like Politifact.

But since all of this has been written about already, what additional insight could we possibly have to offer?

The one thing that has been missing from this entire discussion is: THE TRUTH.

Namely: what should this graph look like, when all of the lies are corrected and accounted for?

To make sure that we cover every possible conservative argument that has been made, we would have to attribute all of 2009 spending to Obama.  We also should really add an extra $200 billion on to the expected spending in 2013 because we know that Obama will not cut any spending and plus he will do other sneaky things.

Thus, Obama’s column should show an increase from $2.98 trillion in 2009 to $3.83 trillion in 2013, which is an increase of 28.5% over 5 years, totally an annual increase of 5.7%.

So we now offer you, exclusively from, the correct conservative re-analysis of the data and the unbiased version of the graph.

Unbiased Federal Spending Growth

Isn’t that SHOCKING????

When you give Obama the blame for all of the spending that happened during the entire year of 2009, and also give him all of the blame for all of the spending that might happen after his term is over in 2013, his total spending increase skyrockets to……  5.7%!

I mean, it’s still a tiny bit weird that it is still lower than Bush’s or Reagan’s…..

But pay no attention to that! 

The point is: it’s very, very different from the first graph, which was clearly infected with liberal bias!!!


Graph Data Source:  OMB, CBO and Havar Analytics
Graph Found Via: Market Watch

CBO debt projections have liberal bias!

Biased Debt Projections

The above graph has been produced by the radical socialist, anti-family left-wing organization called the “Communist Budget Office” (CBO), and is very clearly steeped in liberal bias. Luckily, we here at are here to correct this lie and present to you the correct, unbiased version of the graph (below).

First, look at the sneaky biased way that they present the data in the above graph.  They label the scenario “Bush tax cuts expire and budget cuts are made” as the “baseline scenario.” Then, they label the scenario “Bush tax cuts extended and budget cuts are NOT made” as the “alternative scenario.” They then conclude that the scenario that has the Bush Tax cuts continuing cause an explosion of debt when compared to their “baseline scenario.”

These labels, however, are very misleading. Neither of these lines are a real “baseline.” In fact, neither of these two scenarios represent what real, true, honest, God-loving Americans want. What real Americans want–and by “real Americans” we obviously mean “conservatives”–is for the Bush tax cuts to be extended and for the spending cuts to be enacted.

On the other hand, what communist America-hating liberals want is for there to be no spending cuts, and for the tax cuts to expire.

So both of the lines in the above graph actually represent compromises between the liberal and conservative positions: in one case, we give up the Bush Tax cuts in order to get our spending cuts; in the other case, we give up the spending cuts in order to get the Bush Tax cuts.


That’s right, I said it!

Obviously, any situation where conservatives compromise with liberals will lead to out of control debt, famine and plague, dogs and cats living together in homosexual sin, and other things not even worth mentioning.


Instead, a graph that was presented without liberal bias would show the Conservative Principles plan, in which conservatives stand their ground and get everything they want:

Unbiased Debt Projections

Look at this beautiful graph. When the data are presented this way, your choice is clear.

Do you want evil, out of control destructive compromise?

Or do you want Conservative Principles that will lower the debt to nothing?

The choice is yours.

Will you choose Conservative Principles?

Or will you choose liberal bias?????


Original Graph Data Source: CBO Report
Original Graph Found Via: An Economic Sense

Government spending has a liberal bias!

Liberal Government Spending

Everybody knows that liberals are constantly increasing the size of government, spending money that they don’t have, racking up insane levels of debt, and generally being irresponsible.  Conservatives, on the other hand, always spend less and are fiscally responsible.

So how is it possible that the above graph seems to give the impression that Reagan, Bush, and Bush all increased government spending more in their first terms in office than either Clinton or Obama?  In fact, somehow the line for Obama decreases below zero, suggesting that he has actually decreased government spending, which is obviously impossible because everyone knows that the entire deficit has been caused by him and his anti-American speeches.


There can be only one answer.  Once again, this is quite simply a case where the numbers themselves are lying about the truth. The truth is that conservatives spend less and liberals spend more. Any so-called “numbers” that contradict this have obviously been infected by LIBERAL BIAS!!!!

source: Bureau of Economic Analysis


Gross federal debt still has a liberal bias!

Biased Gross Debt

In a sensible conservative world, it would be obvious that the custodians of real conservative values, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, have been fantastically good for the economy while socialist liberals like Carter and Clinton destroyed everything.

Surprisingly, this graph of U.S. Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP does not reflect this fact. Instead, it seems to give the false impression that Federal Debt got worse under Reagan and Bush and got better under Carter and Clinton. It’s obvious that this data has been infected with some kind of liberal bias!

Source: 2009 U.S. Budget numbers cited on Wikipedia
Via: Noahpinion

Total national debt has a liberal bias!

Biased National Debt

Conservatives are for smaller government and living within your means, while liberals are for running up the debt in order to increase government power.Every day, Sean Hannity tells me that liberals are the ones who are responsible for at least 100% of the crushing federal debt that we now have.

Yet somehow, the completely partisan federal debt refuses to reflect this obvious fact! An analysis of the debt gives the false impression that conservatives are somehow less responsible about spending than liberals.


Obviously, this means that the national debt has a liberal bias!!


National debt has a liberal bias!

Liberal National Debt

Sean Hannity, who is never wrong, is always telling me that Obama has created the National Debt almost entirely by himself. Yet somehow, this graph seems to show that the overwhelming majority of the debt was caused by Republican presidents.


Obviously this graph is nothing more than a liberal plot cooked up to confuse good, honest conservatives. Ignore it: it is just more liberal bias!!!


Source: compiled from data on by Rick Seaman
Via: The Maddow Blog