How to combat liberal CBO numbers

Liberal CBO Numbers

The radical left-wing propaganda-machine Communist Budget Office (CBO) regularly uses “numbers” to fool people into believing liberal talking-points. The above graph is a perfect example.

The above graph seems to suggest that eliminating tax breaks for the rich would reduce the deficit. This false impression is created by the fact that getting rid of tax breaks for the rich would decrease the size of the deficit.

If you are a good conservative, you are naturally befuddled by numbers like this, and they can cause some dizziness and confusion.  So, as a public service, we are here to tell you what to think and how to respond when someone puts numbers like this in front of you.

1) Getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts will not solve the problem. As you can see in this graph, the pale blue area is much much smaller than the dark blue area. This means that reducing tax breaks on the wealthy is just a stupid idea. I mean, if it won’t solve the problem completely, why do it at all?

2) Increasing taxes never reduces deficits. Never never never. Everyone knows this, because in the past there was this one time when Reagan cut taxes and revenue went up, and this proves beyond a doubt that taxes will never reduce the deficit.

3) Why do you hate freedom? Reducing the deficit by stealing money from hard-working billionaires and trillionaires simply isn’t the correct way to solve the problem. If you do that, they will get mad and take their cheesy-poofs and go home. And you don’t want that, now do you?

These are the top three most researched methods for combating numbers like those shown above. These tactics, or variations of them in one form or another, can be heard almost every day on conservative talk radio.

If you hear others, please feel free to share them with us here.


Graph Data Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Graph Found Via:

Investor uncertainty has a liberal bias!

Tax Uncertainty

Everybody knows that having a Democrat in the White House makes investors hoard their cash and destroy the economy. That is why it is critical that we elect a Republican into a White House as soon as possible, so that rich people can sigh a collective sigh of relief and start hiring people.

The logic is, of course, irrefutable, and it goes like this:

1) Democrats always want to raise taxes, even when they say they don’t.
2) Raising taxes makes job creators skittish, scared, and uncertain.
3) Job creators are like small, furry woodland creatures. They need to be soothed and kept safe. Raising taxes on them makes them angry.
4) Angry people don’t create jobs
5) Therefore, even the mere thought of increased taxes when a Democrat is president is enough to frighten the poor, frightened, skittish Job Creators into completely wrecking the economy.

How can anybody argue with that?

Anyway, all of this is obviously true.  So what is wrong with the above graph?

The above graph measures economic uncertainty based on the amount of money that is actually at risk due to changing tax laws, and plots it as a function of time.  On the graph, we have highlighted the economic uncertainty red during Republican presidencies and blue during Democratic presidencies.

Clearly there is something wrong with these numbers. If these numbers are to be believed, the greatest increases in economic uncertainty have happened during Republican presidencies, and economic uncertainty has generally remained flat during Democratic presidencies!


When numbers and data seem to contradict good, old conservative logic, there is obviously only one answer:  the numbers and data suffer from a liberal bias!!!!


graph data source: The Economic Policy Uncertainty Project
graph found via:

European unemployment weirdly contradicts conservative values!

Biased Unemployment Numbers

This graph compares the tax rate on the highest income earners in several European countries to the unemployment rates in those countries. We also threw in the good ol’ U.S.A  just for comparison.

As we all know, one of the most fundamental facts that is unquestionably true about conservative economics is that lowering taxes on the rich will cause unemployment to drop, because rich people will say, “Oh Noes, look at all of this extra money I have! I must hire people immediately!”

And yet somehow, the above graph does not seem to reveal this fact.  Weirdly, the graph seems to show absolutely no relationship at all between the top income tax rate that a country has and the unemployment rate that the country has!



Clearly, something is up. Since it is logically impossible for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to be wrong, there is only one other possibility: the European Countries’ unemployment numbers must be wrong.

Conservative Values!Luckily, we were able to remove the errors from this data, and produce the ideologically correct conservative graph to the right. (Click to enlarge.)

If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and all of the other great conservative thinkers are correct–and they undoubtedly are–then THIS is what the graph should look like!!  Notice the clear relationship that shows that increasing taxes on the rich increases unemployment, while decreasing taxes on the rich decreases unemployment.  That is what the graph should show!

These new unemployment numbers have been estimated using the same methods that Paul Ryan used to create his budget. These methods are known to be Ideologically Pure, and not encumbered by liberal bias.

Now, naturally, Sweden and Denmark might be shocked to discover that they actually have unemployment rates of more than 25%.  Bet they didn’t realize that. But hey, that’s the punishment you get when you tax the job creators.

In this corrected and unbiased, ideologically approved conservative graph, there is a clear relationship between top income rates and unemployment just like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are always talking about!  This is what a good graph should look like!!

Obviously, the first graph can be ignored. Only look at the second  “adjusted” graph.

What of the first graph?  Well… by refusing to reflect the values that we all have been told by our conservative leaders, it is clearly exhibiting a liberal bias!!!!


Graph Data Source: 2012 Eurostat Data (top graph only)
Data Found Via:

Income quintiles have a liberal bias

Liberal Tax Hikes

When a liberal looks at this graph, she sees “evidence” that the Republican tax plan would raise taxes on poor people while the Democrat tax plan would raise taxes on rich people.

But when I look at this graph, all I see is…… CLASS WARFARE!!!!

There is a very important lesson that this graph can teach you, despite it being infected with liberal bias.

The lesson is this: Any time you see any graph that divides up the data by “quintiles” (as shown at the bottom of this graph), you should stop looking at the graph immediately and simply say this:

That is class warfare,  WHY DO YOU HATE SUCCESS??

All of this “quintile” nonsense is just a fancy, elitist way of saying “I’m going to compare rich people to poor people” and we all know that no good can come of that sort of thing.

Quintiles = Liberal Bias

Everything else can be ignored.

Graph Data Source: Tax Policy Center
Graph Found Via: The Century Foundation

Lying graph implies that Romney would raise taxes

Misleading Romney Tax Plan Graph

If you were to believe the data in this graph, you might get the idea that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would result in an increase in taxes on middle-class and poor Americans, while only decreasing taxes for the most wealthy people in America.  Since only liberals raise taxes, doesn’t that mean that Mitt Romney is therefore a secret under-cover liberal?

Possibly. However, this graph is still very misleading for the following reasons:

1) What this graph calls “tax increases” is actually the result of Romney eliminating socialist tax-deduction programs that allowed poor people to pay lower taxes for the wrong reasons, like because they wanted to get educations or they are too poor to afford stuff. Therefore, even though the taxes on the poor people are increasing, they are not technically “tax increases” because poor lazy entitlement Kenyan socialism welfare etc.

2) The only taxes that matter are the taxes on the rich people because those are the people who create jobs. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? No. Therefore, the only lines that matter are the top lines, which are decreasing. The bottom lines might be increasing but that doesn’t matter because poor lazy entitlement Kenyan  socialism welfare etc.

3) Finally, notice that the lines are moving closer together. The system that Romney is moving us toward is more “fair” because “fair” is defined as everyone paying exactly the same tax rate. Some liberals might point out that a cheeseburger is 2% of the daily income of a person who is getting paid minimum wage and a cheeseburger is 0.0000000002% of the daily income of Mitt Romney, BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER. They should still both pay exactly the same tax rate. Because that’s fair. How do we know? Because we defined “fair” as “paying the same tax rate.” It’s common sense.

So do not let the above graph deceive you: what it is really telling you is that Romney’s Tax Plan will DECREASE EVERYONE’S TAXES (everyone that matters, anyway).

Anybody who tells you anything else is just spreading liberal bias!!!!


Graph Data Source: Tax Policy Center
Graph Found Via: The Century Foundation

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

Reagan tax cuts had a liberal bias!

Reagan was a liberal.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is one of Reagan’s crowning achievements. Widely known as one of his two biggest tax cuts, every good conservative knows that this heroic act of Ronald Reagan simplified the tax code, lowered taxes, and therefore lead to prosperity, success, wealth, sunshine, unicorns, and basically has been the root cause of every single good thing that happened in the 1990’s.  Some people say that Clinton is responsible for the budget surplus during Bill Clinton’s term as President… but we know better! It was the 1986 Reagan Tax Cuts!

Yet somehow… something seems very wrong with this graph.

According to this graph, in the years following the enactment of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the effective tax rate (that is, the percentage of income actually paid by people, after all loopholes, breaks, deductions, and other fancy stuff has been applied) of the bottom 80% of income earners (red, green, blue, and yellow lines) went down… but the effective tax rate of the top 20% of income earners actually went up!

How is this possible? Could it be that somehow, in some unknown sinister way, Reagan actually increased taxes on the rich??

It turns out that sneaky little things like an increase in the Capital Gains tax, a strengthening of the Alternative Minimum tax, and the closing of loopholes and deductions are responsible for this “effective tax rate” increase.  The end result was that although the official tax rates for the richest people in the country went down, the wealthiest people in the country ended up actually paying a higher percentage of their income as tax.

This kind of graph can lead to all kinds of trouble.

For example, an evil liberal might look at this graph and say: “Obama has proposed closing loopholes so that the wealthy pay more in taxes. If Reagan did it, then why don’t conservatives want Obama to do it?”

Or, an anti family, anti-values liberal might look at this graph and say: “Obviously, the wealth of the Reagan years didn’t trickle down, but was actually taken from rich people through increased taxes!”

Or, a nature-worshipping, un-American liberal might look at this graph and say: “This shows that Reagan actually never decreased taxes on the wealthy, as is usually claimed. His policies were exactly the same types of tax changes that Republicans are now calling class warfare… now that Obama wants to do it.”


Clearly, this graph cannot represent reality.  Instead, it is another example of statistics that have been infected with liberal bias!!!


Graph Data Source: Econ Data Us
Graph Found Via: US Budget Blog

These are not the tax increases you are looking for

Liberally Biased Tax Chart

This is a truly despicable graph.  As you can see, this ranks several of the tax increases that have happened over the last 60 years or so, and measures them as a percentage of GDP.  According to these liberally biased facts, Obamacare is somewhere in the middle, whereas the Bush Tax Increases of 1980 and the Reagan Tax Increases of 1982 were both larger than the Obamacare Tax Increase.

Obviously this is impossible. These facts cannot be correct.

How do we know?

1) Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in the history of the known universe. I know this is true because Rush Limbaugh said it, and Rush Limbaugh has been documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time. I don’t really know how this was measured, but he said it once on his program so I’m sure it’s true.

2) Reagan is a paragon of conservative virtue and would never raise taxes. Anyone who says that he did is deceptively not paying attention to the time he lowered taxes, which is what they should be doing instead. Obviously.


There is obviously only one possible explanation. You know who some random dude in a robe suddenly “decided” that the Obamacare costs are now taxes, even though Congress previously said they were not?

Well, if they can do it, so can we: Obviously, the “Reagan Tax Increases” were fees and not taxes.  In fact, it’s pretty clear to anyone who thinks about it for a moment that all of the so-called “taxes” on the above graph that are bigger than the Obamacare increase are actually fees and not taxes.

This allows us to conclude that Reagan never raised taxes, and Obamacare is the biggest tax increase ever.

If anyone tells you anything else…. well, that’s just liberal bias!!!


graph data source: Data compiled by Kevin Drum
graph found via: WonkBlog

Mitt Romney vs. Lying Liberal Statistics!

Liberal Statistics and Lies

There is a disturbing trend lately: more and more statistics and graphs are ganging up to unfairly contradict Mitt Romney! How dare they! Don’t they know their place?

The place of statistics is to support good, virtuous, conservative ideals. Yet somehow, almost everything that Mitt Romney says seems to be contradicted by far-left radical “numbers”.  For example, consider the above graph:

  1. Mitt Romney says that Obama has gone on a wild spending spree… yet “Annual Federal Spending” is lower today than when Obama took office
  2. Mitt Romney says that Obama has raised your taxes… yet “Annual Federal Revenue” (which comes from taxes) is lower than it was when Obama took office
  3. Mitt Romney says that since Obama was elected the deficit has exploded and spiraled out of control… yet “Annual Budget Deficit” is lower now than when Obama took office.

How is it possible that all of these numbers are ganging up and conspiring to go against Mitt Romney? There is only one explanation: liberal bias!!!


graph source: Think Progress
data source: Congressional Budget Office
graph found via:

The dark art of graph reading

Unemployment and Tax Rates

Reading and understanding the meaning behind graphs and charts is very complex, which is why it should never be left to amateurs. For example, the above graph has been circulated around the web by liberals who claim that it shows that lowering taxes on the rich does not actually reduce unemployment.

Indeed, when viewed by inexperienced and irrational people, like liberals for example, it might appear that although the tax rate on the rich has been readily decreasing (red line), the unemployment rate has gone up and down in the same basic range with no obviously apparent pattern (blue line). Thus they conclude that decreasing taxes on the rich does not lead to a decrease of unemployment.


Reading graphs is actually a very exact and mysterious science, like medicine or numerology, and should only be practiced by people with a keen eye and intellect who know what to look for and what results they want to see.

A correct interpretation of this graph is as follows:

Unemployment and Taxes - Clarification

As you can see, each time that taxes on the rich were decreased there was a corresponding decrease in unemployment.  Now, it didn’t always happen right away… sometimes things take time to have their effect.  Plus, there are other ups and downs in unemployment that obviously were also influenced by other factors: world markets, regulation laws, fear of a black president, and so on.  But the fact remains that once you remove the “noise” in the unemployment rate, and account for the time delays, there exists a decrease in unemployment for every decrease in taxes on the rich.

Those are hard, numerical facts.


graph source: U.S. Department of Labor
found via:

Deficit Projections have a liberal bias!

Biased Deficit Projections

The above graph is a perfect example of liberal bias and liberal lies. The graph implies that the Bush Tax cuts are responsible for the deficit, even though it has been totally proven that tax cuts do not and cannot cause deficits. Obviously the orange segment of the left graph has been mislabeled.

Unbiased Deficit Projections

In this second graph, I have changed the label of the orange section of the graph in order to remove the liberal bias and make it more accurate.

Source: CBPP Analysis based on Congressional Budget Office estimates
Via: The Joshua Blog

Human Development: liberal data vs. conservative truth!

Human Development: unbiased truth

Human Development: biased data

Conservatives realize the truth that taxes destroy liberty and erode the basic structure of society.  Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that countries having a higher top marginal tax rate would have a lower score on the Human Development Index.

However, as you can see in the graph above, the Human Development Index does not reflect this fundamental fact. Obviously this demonstrates that the Human Development Index has a liberal bias!

In the following graph, below, I show the corrected data, with the liberal bias removed. (Please notice American Exceptionalism!)

Human Development: unbiased truth

Source: Top Marginal Tax Rates from the OECD, HDI statistics from (top graph only), graph created by Greg Stevens

Economic growth has a liberal bias!

Liberal Economic Indicators

There is a sinister plot afoot.

Is it just a coincidence that two of the most major economic indicators, GDP and employment, were higher when Clinton raised taxes and lower when Bush cut them? Despite the fact that everybody knows that raising taxes destroys the economy and cutting taxes is the pathway to prosperity?

This graph makes it pretty clear that there is some partisan shenanigans going on!  It’s obvious that these economic indicators are colluding with liberals to create the illusion that tax increases are good for the economy. Hands-down, an obvious sign of liberal bias!!!!

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
: The Long Goodbye

Job creators have a liberal bias!

Liberal Job Creators

Everyone knows that the wealthy are the job creators, and that if you tax them it will kill jobs.

And yet somehow, over the last 60 years, the job creators have been creating MORE JOBS during years when they were being taxed at a higher rate!


Obviously, these job creators are involved in a sinister plot, due to their liberal bias!!!!!

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Tax Policy Center