ISIS and Ebola: the real consequences of raising taxes on the rich

Obama has raised taxes. Everybody knows it. Obama was elected, he waived his magic Liberalism Wand, sign an executive order or two, and now everyone is paying way too much in taxes. Not just everyone: YOU.  You are paying too much in taxes, and it’s Obama’s fault.

Consider the following graph of the highest and lowest marginal income tax rates over the last 100+ years. Because this graph has liberal bias, it seems to show that tax rates increase for the rich and not for the poor. But still, rich people matter.  A LOT. Therefore, this graph basically proves that taxes have been raised on everyone… or at least, everyone who matters.

Historical marginal tax rates on the rich and the poor.

In case you find the above graph a bit overwhelming or confusing (who wouldn’t?) we have simplified it for you in the following way:


BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!  Not only has income tax on the super-rich increased, but capital gains tax (the other type of tax that most rich people pay) has also increased!!  All you need to do is look at the illustrated graph below to see how sad this is:

All the taxes on the rich people have gone up and that makes them really sad

What have we seen as the negative result of this increase?  ISIS and Ebola.  Now, I know that some people, for example the head adviser and chief of staff for Ted Cruz, have tried to blame Ebola on Obamacare:

Advisor to Ted Cruz blames ebola on Obamacare

But that’s just ignorant. Clearly, both ISIS and Ebola are part of the LARGER PATTERN in our economy, namely: the fact that the rich are paying a little bit more lately.

Did we have ISIS before taxes on the top 1% were raised? NO!

Did we have Ebola before taxes on the top 1% were raised? NO!

I rest my case. If anybody tries to tell you otherwise, the only appropriate response is to yell LIBERAL BIAS!!!!


Republicans Celebrate Massive Gains in 2014 Midterms

The GOP celebrates big wins in the 2014 election!

Less than two weeks before Election Day, Republicans across America are celebrating their massive gains in the 2014 midterms!

Ted Cruz is already demanding that “lame duck” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid relinquish his responsibilities two months early and give Koch Industries full control over the Senate until Koch’s Executive Director of Filibustering Mitch McConnell is re-installed as Senate Majority Leader in January.

And Karl Rove is already giving his advice to the Republican-controlled Congress on how to deal with Obama for the next two years.

Sources say Rove is now so sure about his premature election speculation that he has told Megyn Kelly she won’t be required to walk down the hall to double-check the results as she did in 2012!

Republicans are so confident about the 2014 results that they see no need to even “unskew” the polls this year, as they did in 2012, with 47% of “likely” voters now saying they favor a Republican-controlled Congress vs. 39% favoring a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Of course, Republicans naturally have an edge in “likely” voters in this election. For example, the Supreme Court recently approved the Texas GOP’s scheme to prevent 600,000 mostly minority voters from voting unless they pay a discriminatory new “poll tax” or get a gun license before Election Day…. which, of course, makes the much less “likely” to vote.

With the economy considered “extremely” or “very” important by 91% of voters, Republicans now say their only concern is that voters may accidentally realize America just had a record 55 straight months of job growth that created 10.3 million private sector jobs, while the GOP plan to give huge tax breaks to corporations and the Top 1%  could totally fuck things up again.

But barring people actually paying attention or, God forbid, voting… Republicans say this year’s election is pretty much in the bag.

Republicans are super-flexible. Here are 3 specific examples.

The Daily Edge: Republican Twister! Republicans are open-minded and SUPER-flexible, and we can explain why

Republicans get a bad rap in the press. Liberals accuse them of being rigid, closed-minded and inflexible. Ha! Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, as every “lifelong Republican” knows, being a member of the GOP requires you to constantly re-evaluate your positions, and even your “core” beliefs. It’s exciting! And it demonstrates great flexibility: how can you not be flexible when you start your Republican life agreeing with the teachings of Jesus Christ and St. Ronald Reagan, and end up marching in lockstep with Russian-born atheist Ayn Rand and those poor-hating, planet-polluting Koch Brothers?

“Oh, you’re exaggertaing!” some might say. Well, here’s just a sampling of how flexible and open to new ideas you, as a lifelong Republican, have shown yourself to be:


On People:

THEN: You used to agree with President Reagan that it was highly immoral and distinctly UnAmerican for high-paid executives to pay lower tax rates than their secretaries .

NOW: You refuse to watch Ronald Reagan videos on YouTube that have clearly been doctored by liberals. You are shocked and offended that Marxists like Warren Buffett continue to suggest that millionaires and billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries!


On the Planet:

THEN: You placed your trust in God and Richard Nixon. You listened to the Bible when it told you not to destroy what He had created. You were inspired by Richard Nixon’s 1969 State of the Union and his 37-point message with goals for the environment. You cheered when Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency which passed the Clean Air Act. You thought God would be pleased, too.

NOW: You believe only in Freedom. Specifically the right of companies like Koch-connected Freedom Industries to poison the drinking water in West Virginia. You were inspired when Sarah Palin chanted “Drill, Baby, Drill!” because it sounded so real American-y. You realize now that Richard Nixon must have been a secret European Muslim and God was wrong too. Because unless we approve the Koch Brothers’ Keystone XL pipeline immediately, Fox News tells “lifelong Republicans” the American way of life we cherish so much will be gone forever.


On the Presidency:

THEN: You understood that to fight the War on Terror, Dick Cheney had no alternative but to put the Constitution through the shredder and run the country as a “dictatorship”. You supported policies that gave President George W. Bush “unchecked presidential power over the use of military force, the detention and interrogation of prisoners, extraordinary rendition and intelligence gathering”.

NOW: You realize that Barack H. Obama is a ruthless Imperial Despot destroying America by issuing far fewer Executive Orders than his predecessors. Plus, he’s also a mom jeans-wearing wimp who’s reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Geneva Conventions. Impeachment is the only option!



Remember, you don’t abandon your principles based on which party’s in power or just because the President’s middle name is, you know, Hussein. You’re not a flip-flopper or a dittohead. NO SIRREE!

After all, how can you be accused of changing your “core values” if you deny remembering that they were ever different? How can you be accused of “flip-flopping” when the current president is black and all of the previous ones were white? Situations change! Whatever!

What matters is that you are fully committed to your principles as defined by Fox News, ALEC and the Koch Brothers during each 24-hour news cycle. That kind of core value takes all kinds of flexibility.

And being that flexible is not only fun–it’s also a great workout!

Obamacare will completely destroy marriage… probably

Obamacare will destroy marriage

First, you were told that gay marriage would completely destroy marriage. Well, that didn’t work out. But now there is a new prediction: OBAMACARE will destroy marriage!!!

And we’re pretty sure it’s  right, this time! Probably.

The source of this prediction is the Heritage Foundation. It has a new report out, which explains that Obamacare penalizes married couples financially and therefore will end the world as we know it.

The Heritage Foundation is a well-respected research institute that has a long history of getting things right.

Therefore, in the interest of civility, we will overlook some of the more obvious and glaring problems with their argument, like the fact that married couples actually can choose to file separate returns if they want to, and the fact that the so-called “marriage penalty” in taxes has already been around for a very long time and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Don’t pay attention to that.

Instead, the important point to focus on is that this is part of a LARGER CONSPIRACY by liberals to completely destroy America.  The liberal plan goes like this:

1) Make normal, heterosexual people not even want to get married by allowing gay people to marry. This will dramatically reduce population growth, because of all of the straight people who refuse to marry and have sex as a protest against gay marriage.

2) Make normal, heterosexual people want to get married even less by making people who file jointly less likely to qualify for Obamacare subsidies. This will dramatically reduce population growth, because straight people will say “I can’t get married and have kids if filing my taxes jointly will mean that I’m less likely to get subsidies for Obamacare!” That makes total sense.

3) Heterosexual marriage will then cease to exist, which means reproduction will completely stop and the entire United States will die off within 1 generation.

4) Liberals celebrate victory, and eat cake.


Consider yourselves warned.

If we don’t repeal Obamacare now, it will mean AN END TO MARRIAGE.

Even though married people get medical visitation rights, can make medical decisions for each other, can give tax-free gifts to their spouses, can receive benefits for their spouse, get discounted rates on automobile, health and homeowner’s insurance, get immigration residency benefits, have inheritance rights absent a will, get inheritance without incurring estate tax, get visitation rights in jail, can get “family loans”, and have the convenience of filling out a single return, and over 1000 other federal benefits that married people have that single people do not….. OBAMACARE will completely still stop people from ever getting married again.


Don’t let the #bqhatevwr dream die!

Scott BrownTweets

Republican former Senator Scott Brown infamously tweeted “Bqhatevwr” as part of a string of unusual tweets on January 26, 2013.

This was a bold and courageous move on the part of Scott Brown!


Put plainly, “Bqhatevwr” can be defined this way:
“I would say ‘whatever’, but I actually don’t even care enough about what you are talking about to do that.”


This is a perfect, elegant and concise expression of the conservative view of the role of government in domestic affairs.

Consider these examples:

1. Many Americans are suffering because they can’t afford health insurance and they can’t afford preventative medical care. Obamacare takes steps in the direction of providing a government solution to this problem, but conservatives oppose that. What do conservatives think the government response to human suffering should be? Bqhatevwr.

2. America’s roads and bridges are crumbling. Obama wants to raise taxes to help build new ones, but conservatives are of course against this. What do conservatives think the government’s reaction to crumbling infrastructure should be? Bqhatevwr.

3. More Americans than ever before are hungry, unemployed, looking for work in a depressed job market, and struggling to make ends meet. Obama is trying to help these people to survive until they are able to find work by providing them with food stamps, but of course conservative hate this solution. How do conservatives think the government should react to starving unemployed people who are trying to get by while they look for work? Bqhatevwr.

Bqhatevwr_top_trendLiberals will try to cast this attitude as “heartless” and “cold” and blah blah blah and all that noise.

Moreover, they clearly did not understand the deep and profound message of Bqhatevwr. The tweet was considered bizarre, and was immediately met with mockery in the liberal media. It became an overnight sensation on the liberal website Twitter, where it instantly became a trending topic world-wide.

Bullied by the liberally biased media, Scott Brown eventually deleted the tweets and tried to dismiss “Bqhatevwr” as a pocket-tweet.

But here is the real truth of the matter:

Real conservatives simply think the human suffering and decaying infrastructure are none of government’s damn business.


Don’t let the conservative vision of a Bqhatevwr America die. Please remember to use the term “Bqhatevwr” as often as possible, in all of your political discussions. Remember to tweet the hashtag #Bqhatevwr every chance you get.

Do it… for America!


Tea Partiers more likely to tax evade, according to stupid liberal science.

Tea Party

Profiling is great. Profiling is awesome. Except when it happens to Tea Partiers. Then, it’s tyrannical and irrational and morally wrong.

So here’s the story.  Apparently, the IRS has admitted to focusing on Tea Party groups when looking for tax evaders. This has a lot of conservatives really mad, because they say it is “unfairly profiling” Tea Party groups.

It is important to point out that Tea Partiers are no stranger to profiling.  Tea Party politician Jan Brewer loves profiling. The Republican Party of Wisconsin loves profiling. Generally speaking, all well-known conservative spokes-people love profiling.

But profiling has to be logical. It has to make sense. Like this:  “I hear people talk about Muslim terrorists a lot. Therefore, anybody who is Muslim is probably a terrorist.”

If you are a good conservative, you recognize that this is the kind of profiling that just makes sense.

Tea PartyTea Partiers, however, should never be profiled.

I mean, sure: they tend to say that taxes are too high.

Many of them also say that they are morally opposed to taxation.

Some of them even say that all taxation is unconstitutional and tantamount to theft by the government.

But that doesn’t mean anything! That’s all just anecdotal! And heresay! And other words! If you say “Tea Partiers therefore might be more likely to avoid paying taxes” …. well, that just goes too dang far.

But there is a problem.

Unfortunately, as usual, scientific studies create a problem for this argument.

Some studies show that having a positive view of taxes as a “civic duty” tends to reduce the propensity for tax evasion, while not believing that taxes are a “civic duty” is positively related to tax evasion (Orvisha & Hudson, 2003).

Other studies show that trust in government, trust in the legal system, and trust in the courts are all be positively related to tax compliance, while having a lack of trust in the government is related to tax evasion (Torgler, 2007).


…..but as we all know, things like “science” and “data” traditionally have a liberal bias.  And therefore can be ignored.


Please make sure  you spend this week yelling and screaming about the IRS unfairly profiling Tea Partiers for possible tax evasion.

Then, next week, you can go back to yelling and screaming about how all taxes are theft, and all Muslims should be deported.

If anyone accuses you of hypocrisy, then … well, they must just have a liberal bias!!!!



Orvisha, M. and J. Hudson. (2003). Tax evasion, civic duty and the law abiding citizen. European Journal of Political Economy, 19:1. pp 83-102.

Torgler, B. (2007). Tax Compliance and Tax Morale: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.


For a good summary, read: Tax Morale and Fiscal Policy  (PDF)

Related Articles on ProfilingDomestic Terrorism, Right-Wing Extremism, and Liberal Bias

The word “loophole” has a liberal bias



People in the liberal media are using the term “loophole” incorrectly. It’s time for us to set the record straight.

You SHOULD NOT use the term “loophole” for these things:

The 1993 CEO Compensation Rule:  When Congress tried to cap the deductibility of executive compensation to no more than $1 million per year, somewhere along the way a special provision was entered in so that the limitation was only applied to performance-based pay. So, CEO’s started getting paid bonuses in the form of stock options instead of cash, and the “limitation” became completely useless.

This loophole feature of the tax code costs the U.S. Treasury saves corporations $8 billion a year.  Honeywell made $5 billion from 2009-2012 and paid only $50 million in federal income taxes – a tax subsidy of $1.7 billion – which they were able to do in part because of this loophole.

Everyone knows that CEO’s should not pay any taxes.  They are delicate and dainty, and if you get them mad then they might hire even fewer people. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

Therefore, this is a “tax feature” not a “tax loophole”.

The Off-Shore Tax Laws:  When companies build stuff in other countries, they do not get taxed by the United States. This was originally set up to encourage American companies to go and build stuff abroad. However, in the last few decades they have also been registering patents and trademarks in low-tax countries, even when the discoveries that those patents represent were really made in the United States, so that the income the company receives for those patents and trademarks does not get taxed.

This loophole feature of the tax code costs the U.S. Treasury saves corporations $90 billion a year. Citigroup had $42.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  ExxonMobil had $43 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  General Electric had $108 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Honeywell had $11.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  Just to take four examples.

This also should not be called a “loophole”, because everyone knows that corporations are over-taxed already. Just look at the four examples given above. They obviously need these tax breaks because they are struggling oh so badly.

You SHOULD use the term “loophole” for these things:


Employee benefits:  Employer-paid health insurance are a HUGE loophole.  Also pension plans, plus life insurance, vision and even group legal plans.

These are loopholes because the costs are tax-free unless you pay for them yourself. Plus, they benefit middle class and poor people who obviously don’t need any help with money, those lazy useless creeps.

Home Ownership Exemption: When selling a primary residence (effective 1997) capital gains are totally exempt up to $250,000 ($500,000 if married)  Congress keeps increasing this exemption to include a majority of middle-class voters.  The cap on that exemption targets it to the middle class only — which makes it a loophole for middle-class people.

Who do these people think they are, asking for tax breaks? I mean, it’s not like middle-class people do anything useful or productive the way Exxon Mobile does.


When you use the term “loophole” to apply to those poor, put-upon rich people and corporations, it’s really just showing your liberal bias!!!


sourcesInstitute for Policy Studies, Liberty Issues

TAX DAY TRIVIA: Where did the 47% number come from?

47 percent

47 percent

As a special Tax Day Treat, today we will feature a bit of history. By now, everyone has heard of the infamous 47% statistic. Today, we will show you the specific document where that came from.

It first appeared on June 29, 2009, in a special report from the Tax Policy Center.The specific sentence in the report is this: “TPC (Tax Policy Center) estimates that under the new law (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), 47 percent of tax units (individuals or jointly-filing couples) will owe no income tax in 2009.”

More than two years later, this report has been summarized very wisely by our friends in the GOP as “47% of Americans are lazy moocher who suck money out of the system without giving anything back.”

You might be surprised to find that the source of this Great Wisdom was the Tax Policy Center, since everyone knows that they are known to be a left-leaning, highly ideological, liberal think-tank. We know this is true because there was this one time when they criticized Romney’s tax plan. Clearly, they are traitor to the American Dream.

So how is it possible that they decided to tell the truth about 47% of the population being lazy, shiftless, greedy, unemployed people who live off of government handouts?

Well, it all becomes more clear when you read the rest of the actual report.

Instead of just yelling “47 percent! Lazy! Moochers!!!” and laughing demonically, like Mitt Romney did that one time, this report goes on to say that most of the people who pay no income tax actually do work, but they make so little money and their expenses are so high that they receive credits back, such as the Earned Income Credit, that bring their net taxable income to zero.  The report also mentions that huge portions of the 47% statistics are accounted for by groups that liberals think deserve to get a little assistance, such as the elderly.

Clearly, all of that is just liberal gobbledy-gook and nonsense.  Nobody cares that these people are poor, employed, and elderly or disabled!  What matters is that they are MOOCHERS!

Luckily, nobody actually reads reports, anymore. Or else the Republican party might not have this wonderful gold mine of a winning strategy that they have today.



The fiscal cliff is too confusing for Republicans

Fiscal Cliff Detailed Break-Down

Fiscal Cliff Detailed Break-Down

Republican politicians are doing a terrible job of talking about the fiscal cliff, and the voters are either confused or don’t care. Why? This info-graphic holds the answer.

If the Republicans in power had any clue what they were doing, they would be publicizing this graphic on every website, every Fox News program, and every radio talk station. This graph shows a detailed analysis of exactly who will suffer if Obama doesn’t give in to the Republicans in the House of Representatives in order to avoid the fiscal cliff.

So why aren’t Republicans publicizing this graph? Why isn’t the above analysis being shared with everyone far and wide?

The answer: it’s just too darn complicated. Republican politicians just can’t decide on a story to tell people.

After all, what are their options?



Do they point to the fact that the Bush Tax Cuts and Payroll Tax Cut affect average and poor people?  It’s a little late for that, since they’ve already said that those people should be paying more in taxes and don’t really contribute anything to the economy anyway.

Do they point to the fact that high income tax breaks will be expiring and drastically increasing taxes on the delicate and dainty job creators?  They know very well that this looks bad, because then they come across as only caring about rich people.

Do they point to all of the taxes associated with the new Obamacare Health Care taxes? Well, the graph above clearly shows that those will primarily be hitting the rich people, which undermines the whole narrative that Obamacare will cost the average person. We can’t have people realizing that Obamacare won’t cost middle-class and poor people any money.

Do they point to the fact that the Obama-Era Tax Cuts might expire? Since this will mostly affect poor people, it might make Republicans seem like they care about the poor. Unfortunately, they are called “Obama-Era Tax Cuts” so all that that conversation really does is remind people that Obama helped poor people.



As you can see, Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with this fiscal cliff.  Once people are provided with all of the information, like the information in the graphic above, there is literally no argument that Republicans can use without undermining or contradicting stuff that they have said before.

Now THAT is what I call liberal bias!!!


graph data source: Tax Policy Center
graph found via: Marc To Market

Republican voters have a liberal bias?

Republican voters have a liberal bias

Voters have liberal bias

According to the latest McCarthy-Marxist poll, the American people want the Bush tax cuts to expire on rich people, oppose letting Obama’s tax cut expire, and do not want to cut Medicare or increase the eligibility to 67. But we already knew this: the American people have a liberal bias.

Unfortunately, there is a deeper problem revealed by this poll, and shown in the graph below. When looking only at self-identified Republican voters, they also oppose letting Obama’s tax cut expire, cutting Medicare or Medicaid spending, or raising the eligibility age.

Republican voters have a liberal bias

So in essence, Republican voters are against all of the ideas put forth by the Republicans in congress.


Of course, they are also opposed to letting the tax cuts expire on the rich job creators. They are also opposed to compromise. So there is an alternative explanation.

It’s possible that Republican voters quite simply hate everything.

graph data source (both graphs): McCarthy-Marxist poll
graph found via (graph 1):
graph found via (graph 2): MaddowBlog

Liberal statistics predict no effect of tax cuts on economic growth

Top tax rates and average growth

Earlier this week, we reported that liberal statistics were refusing to show that tax hikes destroy the stock market. Well, they are at it again: this time, statistics are maliciously showing that cutting taxes does not lead to economic growth!

This graph shows countries that have implemented policies of cutting the top marginal tax rates over the 30 or so years.  It compares the amount of the tax cut with the percentage of of GDP growth arising after the tax cut.

Now, any good conservative knows that more tax cuts for the rich always, always, always lead to more economic growth no matter what.  That’s just intuitively obvious, and we hear it on Fox News over and over again, therefore it cannot be wrong.


Somehow, this graph is showing that there is no relationship between the size of the tax cut on the top income earners, and the amount of GDP growth that follows!

One of two things is possible: either tax cuts on top income earners really don’t have much of an effect on economic growth compared to the wide variety of other things that can impact a country’s economy…… or, these statistics are simply skewed by some kind of mysterious liberal bias!!!


graph data source: Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva (2011), “Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities“, CEPR Discussion Paper 8675, December.
graph found via:

Liberal statistics predict no effect of tax hikes on the stock market

Taxes Versus Stocks.

Everyone knows that the tax hikes always completely destroy the economy. Yet somehow, these statistics show that there is no historical relationship between tax hikes or cuts, and changes in the stock market.

Anyone who uses good conservative common sense knows what to expect of the stock market when the government fiddles with taxes. We have heard the argument hundreds of times, on Fox News and our favorite radio talk shows. When the government raises taxes, rich investors panic and freak out and get mad and start selling everything in a huge panic, because they are dainty delicate little flowers. This causes markets to crash.

By contrast, when the government cuts taxes, investors use all of their extra money to invest in American companies, which causes the stock market to go up.

The logic is completely irrefutable. This is one of the biggest arguments for making sure that we don’t go over the fiscal cliff of 2012: allowing taxes to go up will make the stock market collapse.

BUT GIVEN ALL OF THAT… why are the above statistics completely contradicting this air-tight conservative reasoning?

Of the 15 times that taxes were cut since 1927, the stock market increased twice as many times as it decreased; however, weirdly, of the 12 times that taxes were increased, the stock market increased three times as often as it decreased!

There is a similar story with capital gains taxes: there is no clear relationship between increases or decreases in capital gains taxes and the stock market, except that maybe the stock market has increased even more often when taxes were increased than when they were cut!


Of course, there are some who suggest that the effect of taxes on the stock market is so small that is doesn’t really matter. These people suggest that no matter how good or bad the “logic” is, the simple fact is that other factors matter a lot more to the stock market than tax rates. Some even go so far as to say that people who base their investment decisions on their tax rate are obviously not very good at making investment decisions to begin with.

But we obviously disagree.

Clearly, all investors care only about their tax rates and nothing else, and increasing taxes will always completely tank the stock market, and if these so-called “statistics” seem to contradict this, then it is only because they have become infected with the liberal bias!!!!!


table data source: Fischer Investments Research
table found via:

Liberal facts conspire to embarass the Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation vs Liberal Data

When liberal facts and numbers dare to embarrass good, conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation, it’s just downright unseemly.

The above graphs provide a good example of this kind of scummy behavior that liberal facts like to engage in.

On the left you see two graphs that were published by the Heritage Foundation in 2001 as predictions of the miraculous panacea the Bush Tax Cuts would be over the following ten years, from 2001 to 2011. The top graph shows the prediction that the Bush Tax Cuts would produce a veritable explosion of tax revenues from 2001 to 2011. The bottom graph shows the prediction that the Bush Tax Cuts would cause a virtual orgasm of jobs during that same period. Together, these graph proved that the Bush Tax Cuts would be better than sex and solve all of our economic woes.

On the right, you have graphs that show what actually happened in the years 2001-2011. Revenue plummeted, unemployment skyrocketed. In other words: everything turned out pretty much the opposite of what the Heritage Foundation predicted.

How embarrassing.

Obviously, there is something seriously wrong here. The Heritage Foundation are good people. They are doing the best they can. It’s just not fair for facts and actual data to make them look so very, very pathetically inept. It’s just not nice for real statistics to somehow give the impression that the Heritage Foundation is made up of a bunch of yahoos that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and couldn’t predict themselves out of a paper bag.

So obviously, as usual, it must be the facts that are wrong. The reality of the situation is, the Bush Tax Cuts would have done exactly what the Heritage Foundation predicted, if it were not for the unexpected circumstances that arose, including a black president, and of course lots and lots of liberal bias!!!!

graph data source: The Heritage Foundation 2001, Associated Press, and US Bureau of Labor Statistics
graph found via: “How Awesome The Bush Tax Cuts Were Supposed To Be“, The Atlantic Wire.

Capital gains taxes have a liberal bias!

Capital Gains.

Everyone knows that lowering the capital gains tax is what causes job growth, economic prosperity, freedom, and happiness. After all, it just makes sense: the obvious way to make poor people less poor is to tax rich people less. Liberals want to increase capital gains taxes because they hate success, want to destroy the economy, and like to make angels cry.

How do we know that lowering capital gains taxes help to improve the economy?  Because the leaders of the Free World, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, have told us so.  As it was eloquently explained by Reuters, “Romney and Ryan say that lowering tax rates and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends, while letting huge fortunes pass untaxed to heirs, will boost economic growth and mean prosperity for all.”

Romney told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that his own 14 percent effective income tax rate in 2011 was fair because lower capital gains taxes are “the right way to encourage economic growth.” When Paul Ryan was asked to defend Mitt Romney‘s proposal that capital gains tax be lowered, he said this: “you want to have more capital that goes to more businesses, especially small businesses like this one, so more people can go back to work. That creates economic growth.”

It all makes complete sense, and they keep telling us that it’s true. There is no reason to doubt them.

Except along comes this stupid graph, above, showing that there seems to be absolutely no statistical relationship between capital gains tax and economic growth!

Liberal heathen and communist Len Burman has graphed capital gains rates and economic growth and found no relationship at all, even when looking for lagged influences of up to 5 years!



Obviously, if statistical correlation is contradicting the claims of wholesome upstanding citizens like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, then statistical correlation must be suffering from a liberal bias!!!


Graph Data Source: Len Burman Senate Testimony
Graph Found Via: The Washington Post

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: