LIBERAL HAZARD LEVEL
351
Enter Contact Information Here

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." 

Facebook Twitter Gplus YouTube Zazzle RSS

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 

SNAP statistics contradict Paul Ryan

SNAP Program Statistics

Once again there is a conflict between conservative ideology and statistics. This time, the topic is: Do food stamps make poor people lazy?

This graph shows the return-to-work rates for families that went on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as “Food Stamps”) due to unemployment. It turns out that a majority of the families with work-eligible adults that went on the SNAP program regained employment within the same month, and almost 90% of them had regained employment within the following year.

BUT WAIT A MOMENT!!  THAT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!

Everyone knows that when people go on food stamps, they think: “OMG, life is so easy, Ima never work again!”

Paul Ryan stated very clearly in his proposed budget that “government policies affecting lower-income individuals can often create a powerful disincentive to get ahead.”

The meaning of this statement could not possibly be more clear. Giving poor people financial assistance makes them lazy. (It is interesting and important to note that Paul Ryan does not think that giving rich people free money makes them lazy… but that’s a topic for another time.)

So on the one hand, we have Paul Ryan’s sentence in his budget.

On the other hand, we have actual statistics about the return-to-work rates of people on food stamps.

Which one is correct?

Well, we all know the answer to that: statistics clearly have a liberal bias!!!!

 

graph source: CBPP.org

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

Paul Ryan’s tax rates missed the memo on messaging

Paul Ryan loves youPaul Ryan’s budget is much more effective when it is not encumbered by actual numbers, which have a liberal bias. This graph is a perfect illustration of this fact.

When Paul Ryan’s budget is described only using words, it is completely in line with the message the Republican Party is trying to send:

EXAMPLE 1: It will “simplify the tax code to make it fairer to American families and businesses” (page 19).  When he says “fairer” he naturally means that poor people need to pay more. Because the biggest problem with our economic system is that people making $10,000 per year have it too easy.

EXAMPLE 2: It will “reduce the amount of time and resources necessary to comply with tax laws” (page 24). This means getting rid of special conditions and confusing loopholes. Are you worried because you aren’t sure whether you qualify for Earned Income Credit?  Under Ryan’s plan, you will be relieved of this unneeded anxiety… the answer will just be “no”.

It all sounds very good when described this way.

Unfortunately, when you “run the numbers”, as liberals like to say, and create a graph out of it, the result is the unseemly appearance that Republicans are the party of the rich.

 

Obviously, the fault must be with the numbers.  It’s yet another examples of numbers having a liberal bias!

 

graph data source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
graph found via: Daily Kos

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

“Favorability” has a liberal bias!

Liberal Bias Favorability

The new Quinnipiac survey results were released last week. They show one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: the word “favorability” must have a liberal bias!

Look at these disgusting, liberal survey results. For each politician, the blue bar represents the number of people who rated their view of the politician as “favorable” while the red bar represents the number of people who rated their view of the politician as “unfavorable”.  (They do not add up to 100%, because the difference is the number of people who said that they did not have enough information to answer.)

The gray diamond shows the favorability margin: the favorability minus the unfavorability.

First of all, there is an obvious liberal bias to this poll, because the Republican politicians overall averaged much more unfavorably than the Democratic ones. In fact, the only Republican politician who ranked as more favorable than the lowest-rated Democratic politician was Marco Rubio. Clearly this means that the whole idea of “favorability” is liberal and communist and this question shouldn’t even be asked.

However, that is not even the worst part of this survey result.

The worst part is this: HILLARY CLINTON?  REALLY??????

Don’t the American people REALIZE that she’s, like, practically the devil?

Haven’t the American people been listening, when we tell them that she had White House Counsel Vince Foster killed, she accepted money from a Chinese spy, she has a lot of mysterious dead friends, she manipulated high risk commodities futures in a money scam, she was involved in something called Whitewater that nobody remembers but was a big scandal, she is secretly a lesbian (you can tell because of her haircut), she faked a concussion and/or allowed herself to be pushed down the stairs just to avoid testifying about Benghazi, and… and… STUFF LIKE THAT???

How can the American People like this woman???

Obviously, they have all been hypnotized by some kind of liberal lesbian voodoo.

 

And if that weren’t bad enough, this poll now gives liberals an excuse to shamelessly brag and strut about how popular their girl Hillary is.

God, they are such sore winners.

 

graph data source: quinnipiac poll results, Feb 8 2013
graph created by: liberalbias.com

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

The Tea Party Cat explains the 2012 election aftermath

Tea Party Cat

In this exclusive interview for LiberalBias.com, Greg Stevens gets the Tea Party Cat to cut through political gaffes, backpedaling and misstatements to find out what our great conservative leaders will really be thinking after the 2012 election.


Greg Stevens [GS]:  One of your great talents as a powerful voice on the Right is your ability to state, in simple terms that everyone can understand, what our leaders are really thinking. We all know that people misspeak, and sometimes get quoted out of context. But even when politicians don’t quite say what they should, you have a talent for being able to decipher what they really mean.

Paul Ryan.Donald Duck

So if I can get your wisdom and insight on the record, exclusively for us here at Liberalbias.com, I would like us to take a look into the future at what our political leaders will really be thinking the day after the election. What do you say?

Tea Party Cat [TPC]: Well, as you know, for conservatives there are only two futures: apocalyptic futures where America is destroyed by 39% marginal tax rates on the rich, and bright futures where heroic (male) leaders restore America to its rightful place as absolute ruler of the world and impose fundamentalist Christianity and democracy on the world at the end of a tank barrel.

GS: That sounds right… so let’s start by imagining the worst case scenario: Obama has been re-elected.

TPC: That would be a real tragedy. The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have invested a billion dollars in this election, and to have it stolen by voters would be horrible. If this happens, then it might deter billionaires from trying to buy future elections, which would mean even more control over our government by the moochers.

GS: If we could get him to admit it bluntly, what is Mitt Romney really thinking?

TPC: “Oh, well. Good thing we did this on the Koch and Adelson money instead of mine. And besides we skimmed plenty off the top from the SuperPACs for ‘management fees’, so it’s really no different than KB Toys.”

GS: And what is Paul Ryan really thinking?

TPC: “Good thing I stayed on the ballot for my congressional seat. Plus now I can write a book like Palin did and finally cash in on this.”

GS: And Barack Obama?

TPC: Well, that’s going to be more of a conversation like this:

Obama: “Bill, thanks for all your help in this campaign. What can I do to repay you?”
Bill Clinton: “Barack, you know what I want.”
Obama: “OK, I’ll hire back the Secret Service team that got caught with prostitutes in Colombia and assign them to your detail.”
Bill Clinton: “And?”
Obama: “And I’ll keep Hillary out of the country as much as possible.”

GS: And Sarah Palin?

TPC: “Don’t blame me. I backed Newt.”

GS: Newt Gingrich?

TPC: “Hello, Sheldon [Adelson]? So, 2016? I won’t be too old. We both know you can’t trust that Christie guy to toe the line, and Ryan is damaged goods now.”

GS: And what are the Koch brothers thinking?

TPC: “Well, we still own Paul and Scott and Reince in Wisconsin, all of Kansas, Arkansas, and have plenty of others in our pocket. We can still buy 2014 and 2016.”

GS: Reince Priebus?

TPC: “Oh, well, we’ll just have to suppress more votes next time!”

GS: Rick Santorum?

TPC: “I told you Romney couldn’t beat Obama.”

GS: Karl Rove?

TPC: “Oh, thank God! I oversold the election, so it’s a good thing Mitt lost because too many billionaires would expect something.”

GS: Scalia?

TPC: “Mitt lost? Are you sure, Florida? I even got my ‘Bush v Gore pen’ back from the Smithsonian.”

GS: Rick Perry?

TPC: “I knew I should’ve run for president this year. I could’ve won this thing.”

GS: Chris Christie?

TPC: “Hey, Mitt! Sorry you lost. No, not really. I never really liked you or your whole no swearing act, and now it’s wide open for me in 2016. Don’t worry, I won’t be inviting you to the convention—you can sit home with W.”

GS: And finally…. Fox & Friends?

TPC: “Let’s call Trump and see if he thinks the election was stolen too!”

GS: Very impressive! Now, let’s imagine again, but this time it is the day after the election, and the angels have smiled upon our nation and blessed us with a Mitt Romney victory.

NOW, what is the quote from Mitt Romney?

TPC: “I hope all this crazy shit we’ve been saying works, because Paul and Grover are making me go through with this.”

Though at some point you know Romney is going to notice what the job pays, and I can’t see him sticking around for a measly $400,000 a year.

GS: From Paul Ryan?

TPC: “Oh, thank God I don’t have to go on Dancing With The Stars now.”

GS: From Barack Obama?

TPC: “You were right, Hillary, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy. Good luck in 2016.”

GS: From Sarah Palin?

TPC: “My Facebook statuses did it!”

Though I actually expect Palin will go quiet for a while after election night. She’ll be disappointed that Romney won. Criticizing the president is so much easier than trying to justify his mistakes, and as her financial adviser told her last fall, with Romney running for reelection, she can’t pretend to run again to get an all-expense paid family vacation from her SuperPAC. It’s a bad day for Palin, and she knows it.

GS: Mitch McConnell:

TPC: “Holy shit! Sabotaging the economy worked! They fell for it. Suckers!”

GS: Rick Santorum?

TPC: “Could’ve been me. I could’ve beaten Obama. Well, if it weren’t for Google. And the fact that I’m an sufferable prick.”

GS: Chris Christie?

TPC: “Crap! Now I gotta wait until 2020. I was sure 2012 was a loser and it would be mine in 2016.”

GS: Fantastic!  Now, no matter what we hear on our television sets or read in the newspapers on the day after the election, we can all rest assured that we already know what they are really thinking.

Finally, one last question: are you really a cat?

TPC: Well, my identity is a closely guarded secret, but I would like to lay to rest the rumor that I am Stephen Colbert’s cat. I am not. I am no one’s cat. I own people, they don’t own me.

GS: Thank you very much for your time!

 

The Tea Party Cat can be found on Tumblr, on Twitter and on Facebook.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2013