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 heritage.org 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 LiberalBias.com, 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

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

 

Unemployment claims have liberal bias!

Liberal Unemployment Claims

Rush Limbaugh, who is never wrong, has told us repeatedly that the stimulus was a failure. On Fox News, they report regularly that the stimulus was a failure.

Yet, in spite of this truth, the above graph seems to show that jobless claims were increasing before the stimulus took effect and started decreasing after it took effect.  If they seem to contradict Fox News, then it is clear that these jobless claims must have a strong liberal bias!!!!

Source: Market Watch Data
Via: The Washington Monthly