LIBERAL HAZARD LEVEL
351

Liberal Bias

Enter Contact Information Here

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." 

Facebook Twitter Gplus YouTube Zazzle RSS

Job recoveries have a liberal bias!

Published on May 3, 2013 by in Graphs

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!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU STUPID RECOVERY? HAVEN’T YOU HEARD OBAMA IS DESTROYING EVERYTHING?

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!

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

European austerity weirdly contradicts conservative values

Published on May 1, 2013 by in Graphs

Eurozone austerity

“If we tighten our belts it will lead to growth,” Rand Paul has said. “Reducing the deficit always makes economies boom,” Paul Ryan has said. So why is this graph showing otherwise?

Of course we have not just heard this from our conservative hero, Rand Paul Ryan. We have also heard this from great intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  They all tell us the same thing: deep cuts in spending will balance the budget and instantly lead to an enormous explosion in hiring, productivity, GDP, puppies, rainbows, and oral sex.  In other words: it will solve all problems in the world.

Weirdly, the above graph shows that in European countries, there is a negative relationship between the degree of austerity they implemented, and their GDP growth.  More specifically: across Europe, the more dedicated a country was to cuts and austerity, the more their GDP dropped.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, STUPID GRAPH? DIDN’T YOU GET THE MEMO?

When statistics like these dare to contradict the talking points of our great lord and leader, Rand Paul Ryan, there is only one conclusion we can come to:  the statistics must have a liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database
graph found via: Paul Krugman, New York Times

related article: European unemployment weirdly contradicts conservative values

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

The word “loophole” has a liberal bias

Published on April 29, 2013 by in Featured

Loopholes

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!!!

 

sources:  Institute for Policy Studies, Liberty Issues

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

Obama takes more vacations than any modern president

Published on March 30, 2013 by in Illuminated Truth

Obama The Vacationer

Fox News claims that Obama has taken more vacations than any recent president. After a LOT of effort, we have finally found a way to prove them correct.

We have to admit, it was tough. After all, during Obama’s first term he was on vacation 131 days, while George W. Bush averaged 510 vacation days per term while in office.

Days Vacation per term (ref)
Ronald Reagan 242
George HW Bush 543
Bill Clinton 76
George W Bush 510
Obama (Term 1) 131

But as good conservatives, we have a strong interest in proving that Fox News is always right about everything.  So we started to dig.

ARGUMENT 1: Obama shouldn’t be vacationing when the economy is bad! He should be working!

It is true that the GDP growth under Obama has been much worse than it was under George W. Bush. When GDP growth is low, Presidents deserve less vacation time. That’s just common sense.

So we can create a weighting system that takes this into account.  Let’s look at the number of vacation days each president took per term per the annual percent GDP growth during that term.

Days Vacation
per term		 % GDP Growth
(ref)		 Vacation Days
per % GDP Growth
Ronald Reagan 242 3.3 73.33
George HW Bush 543 1.9 285.79
Bill Clinton 76 3.7 20.54
George W Bush 510 1.7 300.00
Obama (Term 1) 131 0.8 163.75

As you can see, this raises Obama’s “effective vacation days” (from 131 to 163), and lowers George W. Bush’s (from 510 to 300)

However, it isn’t enough.  George W. Bush still took more vacation days than Barack Obama.

ARGUMENT 2: Obama shouldn’t be vacationing when the debt is so big! That’s wasteful spending!

The Federal Debt is six trillion dollars more under Obama than it was under George W. Bush. That’s got to be taken into account somehow.When the debt is higher, presidents should take fewer vacation days. That’s just common sense.

So in addition to dividing the vacation days by the percent annual GDP growth, we can also multiply our “effective vacation days” calculation by the federal debt at the end of the president’s term.

Vacation Days
per % GDP Growth		 End Of Term Debt
x 10 trill $ (ref)		 Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
Ronald Reagan 73.33 $0.27 19.80
George HW Bush 285.79 $0.42 120.03
Bill Clinton 20.54 $0.57 11.71
George W Bush 300.00 $1.07 321.00
Obama (Term 1) 163.75 $1.64 268.55

This helps a little bit, but unfortunately it is not enough.  Using this new adjusted “effective vacation days”, Obama (268 days) is now getting closer to George Bush (321 days), but George Bush still has more vacation days than Obama.

ARGUMENT 3: I’m a constitutional originalist. Which is really code for…

Look, we’re not proud of this.  Really, we’re not.

But we’ve got to find some way of proving that Obama has taken more vacation days than George W. Bush.  Otherwise, we might have to admit that Fox News spews completely false B.S. on prime time television.

We tried all kinds of other factors, even beyond the two mentioned above.  Nothing seemed to work.

Even when we took into account the debt, the economy, unemployment, number of golf games, and even approval ratings, nothing was able to make Barack Obama seem to have taken more vacations than George W. Bush!

 

But luckily, there is the constitution.

Conservatives love the constitution: the original constitution.  And in the original constitution there is a very specific number associated with people like Barack Obama.  That number is three-fifths.

The number appears in Article I, section 2 of the constitution, and although it was superseded by the fourteen amendment, most conservatives know that that’s totally the least important amendment.

In the interest of delicacy we will simply call this number, three-fifths, the “Constitutional Coefficient”, or C-Factor.

We can include the C-Factor into our calculation of “effective vacation days”.  After all, if George Washington only wanted Barack Obama to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the census, we can only assume he would only want him to take 3/5 of a regular president’s vacation days, as well.

Days x Debt
per GDP Growth		 Constitutional
Coefficient
(“C-Factor”)		 10 x Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
per C-Factor
Ronald Reagan 19.80 1 19.80
George HW Bush 120.03 1 120.03
Bill Clinton 11.71 1 11.71
George W Bush 321.00 1 321.00
Obama (Term 1) 268.55 0.60 447.58

Eureka!  This solves the problem: using this calculation, Barack Obama has taken more vacation days than George W. Bush.

CONCLUSION

Fox News is correct: Barack Obama has taken more vacation days than any president of anything ever in the entire history of time. The above graph and table prove this point.

When liberals say that George Bush has taken more vacation days, that is because they are not using the special, adjusted “effective vacation days” measurement, which has been corrected to take into account important factors like GDP growth, Federal Debt, and–of course–the Constitution.

And if they aren’t willing to include important things like the economy and the constitution, well… that can only mean one thing: they are guilty of liberal bias!!!

 

 

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

Obama Recovery: fewest full moons since 1970

Published on March 20, 2013 by in Graphs

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 LiberalBias.com 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

 

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

QUIZ: are you qualified to create a conservative budget?

Published on March 18, 2013 by in Featured

Serious Budget

Take this two-question quiz. If you answer both questions correctly, then YOU are qualified to draft a conservative budget plan for the United States.

Question 1: The cost for this element of the federal budget accounts for less than 1% of the annual federal deficit. However, it needs to be cut immediately. The meaning of this cut would be symbolic: when we are trying to tighten our belts, every little bit counts. This program is not needed, and some studies suggest that it impacts a very small minority of the population anyway. Because this program only helps a small number of people, but is paid for by everyone’s tax dollars, it represents socialism. It must be eliminated.

This program is:

A)  PBS
B)  Tax breaks for corporate jet owners

Question 2: The cost for this element of the federal budget accounts for less than 1% of the annual federal deficit. However, to cut it would be a complete disaster. Because the amount of money is so small, it will not put a dent in our real economic problems and therefore should be ignored, as it is just a distraction from more important issues. It only benefits a small portion of the population, but the people it benefits are the ones who should be helped. Therefore, we need to keep this program in place.

This program is:

A)  PBS
B)  Tax breaks for corporate jet owners

 

 

 

If you answered (A) PBS to the first question, and (B) Tax breaks for corporate jet owners for the second question, then CONGRATULATIONS!   ….you are qualified to create a conservative federal budget plan!

 

Related Story: Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition

 

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2013