LIBERAL HAZARD LEVEL
351
Enter Contact Information Here

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." 

Facebook Twitter Gplus YouTube Zazzle RSS

The Heritage Foundation embarrasses itself with numbers… again.

Published on June 5, 2013 by in Graphs

problems measuring austerity

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t know what “austerity” means or how to measure it, and just can’t seem to understand how numbers actually work. This is causing some trouble for a party that doesn’t want to be seen as the “party of stupid”.

We’ve written before about how the Heritage Foundation regularly makes predictions that are wildly inaccurate, and normally we are perfectly content to blame liberally-biased “facts” rather than the good conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.  However, in light of recent evidence that Young Republicans don’t want to be part of “a stupid party”, we think it’s time to put our foot down and ask the important question: Heritage Foundation, what the hell is wrong with you?

The most recent topic is that of austerity.  Liberals have been claiming that the conservative notion that “austerity will fix everything” is debunked by the problems in Europe.  “Europe has austerity,” these evil liberals will say, “And their economic situation has gotten worse. That proves you are wrong, Q.E.D, neener-neener.”

The most recent fad going around the internet has been for conservatives to respond by saying, “What Europe has done isn’t really austerity, because they increased taxes instead of cutting spending.  Increasing taxes is what is causing their problems. Real, true, manly austerity is based on cutting spending.”

OK, so they don’t usually use the word “manly”, but you get the idea.

It is important to realize where this idea comes from: The Heritage Foundation.  They have been peddling this idea for a long time now, and have most recently summarized it nicely in the congressional testimony by Salim Furth (PDF).  Instead of “manly”, Dr. Furth uses the term “classic austerity”, presumably because he is aware that the word “austerity” by itself refers to

Definition of austerity

So by adding the word “classic”, he can fudge this a little bit and claim that tax increases are the “wrong” kind of austerity, because they are not “classic”. Or whatever.

The problem is, no matter how you define “austerity”, the Heritage Foundation claim that Europe hasn’t been implementing austerity is wrong.  Dr. Furth claims that European countries have not been decreasing their deficits, but then presents a table showing that their deficits as a percentage of GDP in each year (left side table, above).  In other words, countries that cut their deficits would still show an increase if their GDP dropped by a larger amount.  When the change in the deficit was measured as a percentage of a constant GDP (right side graph, above), the United States, Britain, France, and Spain–all showing increasing deficit in the Heritage Foundation table–can all be seen to have actually decreased their deficits.

But what is even worse is this: even if you allow the Heritage Foundation their notion of “classic” austerity, most of the countries in Europe were still implementing austerity.  According to the OECD, when you compare what percentage of the budget cuts were due to spending cuts versus tax increases in each country, the majority of the countries closed their spending gaps mostly with spending cuts:

EOCD Austerity chart

So it comes down to this: Heritage Foundation, you need to get your act together.  In the past we have been more than happy to defend you on the  grounds that numbers and statistics have a liberal bias.  However, it’s 2013 now…. if you can’t manage to simply get the numbers right in your arguments, you will never shake that reputation of being the “party of stupid”.

 

For more discussion: Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity (WonkBlog)

graphs data sources: OECD
graphs found viaThe Washington Post

related article: Liberal facts conspire to embarrass the Heritage Foundation

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

Obama takes more vacations than any modern president

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

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 

GDP Wars: Liberals vs Conservatives

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
: investors.com
graph 2 source: Eye On Housing

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

Breitbart.com has liberal bias!

Breitbart.com loves taxes!
Breitbart.com needs to get their act together. While all other respectable and unbiased news agencies are reporting that there is no recovery, everything is terrible, and Obama is to blame, Breitbart.com is straying from the path and reporting good economic news.

Look at these disgusting socialist-sounding headlines recently appearing on Breitbart.com:

And check out some of these quotes from the articles:

Two key drivers of growth improved last quarter: Consumer spending increased at a faster pace. And businesses invested more in equipment and software.

In addition, homebuilders are stepping up construction to meet rising demand. That could generate more construction jobs.

And home prices are rising steadily. That tends to make Americans feel wealthier and more likely to spend. Housing could add as much as 1 percentage point to economic growth this year, some economists estimate.

Auto sales reached their highest level in five years in 2012 and are expected to keep growing this year. That’s boosting production and hiring at U.S. automakers and their suppliers.

Some recent signs suggest that the job market is holding steady and may even improve a bit. The average number of people seeking unemployment aid each week in the past month is near a four-year low.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU, BREITBART.COM??

 

Breitbart.com is LIBERAL BIASWhat originally started as a good, solid, Jesus-loving, xenophobic, union-bashing organization has clearly become infiltrated with some kind of liberal conspiracy or plot or disease or something.

So, just in case you have been tainted by reading their misleading headlines, let me cleanse your brain with a reminder of the cuddly and comforting conservative truth.

Bill O’Reilly, who is always right about everything, was doing an interview with some left-wing lunatic. Here you can hear O’Reilly explaining calmly and rationally all of the facts: the economy is not improving, it is bad, there is no recovery, it is all the president’s fault, and the 60% of people who like the president are therefore obviously morons and left-wing loons:

How can Breitbart.com disagree with this obvious wisdom? It is clear that, despite their occasionally racist headlines, Breitbart.com must be LIBERAL!!!!

We have added the appropriate speech bubble to indicate this fact.

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

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2013