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:

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!!!!


Republicans finally admit economy is improving; say racism is to blame

Over the past week, several notable Republicans have finally admitted that the economy is improving.

“We’ve been denying it for five years now, and it’s been pretty exhausting,” admitted one chief aid to a prominent orange-hued Republican on the condition of anonymity. “But between unemployment being the best it has been since Bush, the stock market reaching record highs, and the deficit being the best it’s been since Bush… it’s gotten to the point where it’s just difficult to deny.”

Of course, since the media storyline for years has been that we are in a terrible, floundering recovery, there have been a lot of facts that the media was simply unable to talk about. One low-level script writer on the Fox News journalism team even confessed, “The list of things we weren’t allowed to talk about was getting so long, it was getting to be a challenge just to fill up the prime-time slots with anything even remotely political.”


Despite admitting that every single sign shows that the economy is improving, key Republicans were able to find a way to spin it to their benefit…

…they have decided to blame racism!


“It’s basically a form of affirmative action. It has to be. How else can you explain a recovery under a black president being better than a recovery under a white president?”


Jobs are improving faster under Obama because of RACISM.

“The insight really hit me when I saw this graph from the Department of Labor,” said an anonymous Congressman who looks suspiciously like Eddie Munster. “It shows that private-sector job gains after the 2009 recession have been faster than the private sector job gains after the 2002 recession. Now I thought to myself, how could that be? In 2002 the President was George Bush, and in 2009 the President was Barack Obama. See what I mean? I think you know what I’m getting at.

Back in October 2013, Rush Limbaugh observed that people are scared to oppose Obama because Obama is black. The reasoning is simple: if you in any way try to hinder Obama’s success, then you will be called “racist”, which of course is just mean. Oh and by the way it’s also racist because calling something “racist” is inherently racist, and not wanting to do things that seem racist IS ALSO RACIST.

Looking at the above graph, some people say it’s obvious that the private sector is ONLY HIRING NEW PEOPLE out of fear of doing something to make Obama look bad, and therefore being called “racist”, which of course is also racist.

I mean, why else would the recovery under the black guy be going better than the recovery under the white guy did?

There really can’t be any other explanation, right?

Nobody cares about your stupid housing price surge!

Real Home Price Index, Unbiased Graph

Real Home Price Index, Unbiased GraphLeft-wing radicals have been promoting some kind of story about a housing price surge. Luckily, most people don’t understand it. This graph will help you to understand why.

Look at this beautiful graph. It is the perfect graph to convey what conservatives want it to convey, without a lot of worry that liberal bias will seep in.

When liberals look at this graph, they see that the teeny, tiny, itty-bitty tail end of the blue line on the right side of the graph is increasing very rapidly.  This is what lead to the headline in the liberal communist anti-American media that the recent increase “is the fastest pace of increase since April 2006.”

Liberals expected this headline to create some kind of fuss, but they were wrong.  Why?

Well, just look at the above graph!  Nobody really cares about the “rate of increase” of something!  “Rate”? Huh? What?  That sounds an awful lot like “slope” or “derivative” or other complicated words that nobody ever really understood in high school math class anyway.  That kind of stupid crap doesn’t matter.   This kind of nonsense is exactly why we conservatives are against education to begin with.

What actually matters, clearly, is just the overall value of the home prices, which are still much lower than they were back when Jesus W. Bush was President. We have highlighted this fact with a couple of additional adornments in the graph, just to make sure that you pay attention to the correct thing.

If you pay attention to anything else, like “rate of recovery” or other snobby college-sounding stuff, then well… you’re just guilty of liberal bias!!!!


(But luckily, nobody cares)


graph source data: Case Shiller, BEA
graph found via: Calafia Beach Pundit


Job recoveries have a liberal bias!

Private Sector Jobs under Bush and Obama

Private Sector Jobs under Bush and Obama

Everyone knows Obama’s job recovery is the most sluggish job recovery in the history of all of humanity, and probably the whole galaxy. So why does this graph show that Bush’s job recovery was even worse?

Some of you might remember that George W. Bush’s first term as president immediately followed a big stock market bust, just as Barack Obama’s first term immediately followed the housing bust.  Although both busts were different, both lead to dramatic job losses that then rebounded.

And according to the above graph, the recovery of private sector jobs during Obama’s presidency was much faster than the recovery under George W. Bush’s presidency!


We’ve heard repeatedly from our conservative leaders that this economic recovery is worst, most sluggish recovery ever since the beginning of time plus a million.  Why is it that we don’t remember the same comments being made during Bush’s term as president?

Some people might point out that the recovery seemed better under Bush because Republicans under Bush allowed private sector jobs to increase, while under Obama they have slashed government jobs as much as possible.

But do not listen to those people. Everyone knows that “government jobs” don’t count. That would just be liberal bias!!!


graph found via: Calculated Risk Blog

an update to: You should believe it’s a non-recovery because I say so
related post: Hannity’s rubber band has a 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 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


This graph DARES to suggest that “trickle-down” doesn’t work!

Profits, Wages and the Stock Market

Profits, Wages and the Stock Market

Ronald Reagan was an advocate of trickle-down economics. Ronald Reagan was perfect in every way. Therefore, this graph is wrong.  That’s just logic.

For those of you who don’t know, “trickle-down economics” is the very sensible conservative view that the most important thing in the economy is rich people.  When rich people do well, they buy stuff that you make and hire you to fix their boats and airplanes and take away their garbage.  In other words, everyone is happy, because you should thankful to even be employed at all, you lazy bum.

Ronald Reagen did not invent trickle-down economics. In fact, as a theory it has been around since at least the 1890’s, when it was called the “horse and sparrow theory” of economics. The idea is that if you feed a horse enough oats, it will eventually shit them out onto the road, and then the sparrows will be able to eat the oats from the road.

The Reagan administration wisely decided to use the term “supply-side economics”. It is basically the same concept.  However, they rarely, if ever, mentioned sparrows eating horse shit in their economic discussions.

At any rate, the point is that when rich people are better off, they make everyone better off. When the horse eats more oats, the sparrows get more oats. That’s a core bedrock principle of conservative economics.

Yet somehow, inexplicably, the above graph seems to indicate otherwise.  In this graph, you can see that the horses have been eating more and more oats over the last four years: corporate profits and stock value are going up and up and up.  Yet somehow, the sparrows are not getting more oats: the earnings of workers are staying about the same.

Where are your oats, Liberal Graph?

As conservatives, we take as axiomatic that trickle-down theory must be correct; therefore, the only possible conclusion is that this graph is just wrong.

Yet another case of numbers and statistics having liberal bias!!!


graph data source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
graph found via: The Huffington Post

Unemployment is at 52.4% (according to FU)

The Complete Unemployment Chart

The Complete Unemployment Chart

We have devised the most accurate measure of unemployment yet: the Fox Unemployment (FU) statistic. When calculated correctly, this statistic shows that unemployment is a staggering 52.4%!

It is important to remember that there many different ways to calculate unemployment. If unemployment seems to be decreasing while there is a black liberal guy in the White House, then obviously people are measuring unemployment the wrong way. In fact, we used the logical thought-processes of the great Mark Levin to prove that unemployment was 50% more than 6 months ago.

But with a new jobs report being released, it is important to re-visit this issue in an even more precise and logical way. We have chosen as our starting point a column from the fair-and-balanced, entitled, “February’s jobs report only looks good because our expectations are so low“. That is obviously a great headline, but it buries a much more important point that is also made in the article.

According to this article, the unemployment statistic is meaningless specifically because it ignores 1) the people who have given up looking for work, 2) the people who are lazy and don’t want to work at all, and 3) the people who are working part time.  All of these things are obviously much, much more important than anything else, even though conservatives never talked about them before there was a black liberal guy in the white house.

Following this logic, we have decided to improve upon the existing set of unemployment measurement standards by adding a new measurement. Because it is inspired by the logic that is used over at Fox News, we are calling it the Fox Unemployment (FU) statistic.

According to the FU statistic, which includes people who have given up looking for work, lazy people who don’t want a job, and people who are only working part time, unemployment under President Obama is actually 52.4%!!!!

52.4%!!!!  Isn’t that INSANE???  Have you ever heard of such a thing before????


Please remember to distribute the above chart to all of your friends and family members.

And if anyone ever tries to tell you that unemployment is less than 52.4%, then all you need to say to them is:  “Oh yeah? What about FU!”


Graph Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Jobs Report
Graph Found Via: Quartz

Related Articles: Mark Levin proves that unemployment is really 50%


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)

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
graph 2 source: Eye On Housing

Valentine’s Day makes full economic recovery. GOP has no explanation.

Liberal Valentine's Day

Liberal Valentine's Day

Statistics show that Valentine’s Day has made a full economic recovery from the Obama recession. Republicans have no explanation for this bizarre phenomenon.

It is well-known among conservatives that the economy is bad. There is no recovery, and the reason is that there is a communistical Kenyan liberal socialist in the White House. This is common knowledge.

Valentine’s day spending went down dramatically at the beginning of the recession. Moreover, since there is no recovery, we should expect that this spending would still be very low. Yet somehow it has risen even higher than it was in 2008.



Clearly, all of these Valentine’s Day gifts must be being purchased by blacks, Hispanics, women, and young people—you know, the people who were simply too stupid to not vote for Obama, according to Mitt Romney.

After all, good conservatives—old, white, male conservatives—clearly know better than to spend money on something as frivolous as Valentine’s day during a recession!!!


graph source data: National Retail Federation’s (NRF) 2012 Valentine’s Day Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey
graph found via:

S&P 500 stock market index has a liberal bias!

No recovery!!!

No recovery!!!

Obama is terrible for business. We have unskewed the above graph of the S&P 500 stock market index in order to make sure that you understand this fact.

The stock market has been blatantly and flagrantly contradicting our “there is no economic recovery” and “Obama is bad for businesses” message, and on behalf of conservative radio and television commentators everywhere, we here at have to say: we’re OVER IT.

It was less than a week ago, for example, that Sean Hannity had the usual pair of guests on his radio show: a timid and meek liberal and a loud and abrasive conservative (heck yeah!). The timid and meek liberal dared to talk about the fact that the Dow Jones has skyrocketed under Obama, so of course the loud and abrasive conservative interrupted and said:


(Yes, even on the radio you could tell he was speaking in all caps.)

Well, apparently this conservative radio guest was not aware that the S&P500 is also in on the conspiracy.

On the remote chance that some of Sean Hannity’s want to look up a graph of the S&P 500, we are providing the above graph as CONFIRMING EVIDENCE that there is no recovery under the Obama administration.  As you can see, in our unskewed graph, the stock market has remained completely flat during the Obama presidency.

Take that, Obama.


original graph source: Business Insider

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:

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: