Race Book Joe calls the Jobs Report!

[pandy]

I had to start a new thread for this. Below is a direct quote that member RacebookJoe posted in another thread last month. Genius!


Racebookjoe: "Any bets on the unemployment number magically getting below 8% the friday before the election? I'm guessing 7.8%, which will of course will be revised back up to 8.3% after the election."

[Let's Roll]

This was a very, very good call on the unemployment numbers.

We can now clearly see this affirmitive action president stumbling across the finish line. After all these these months, millions more unemployed now than ever before, those going on disability faster than getting real jobs.....not to mention the lies coming from the White House and the press, the 100+ rounds of golf and all the other failures....on this the American people have to give bh0 a little pat on the head.
This is a case of too little , too late.My guess is, had the chair in Oval Office literally been empty the last 4 years, the unemployment rate would have gone down much faster.My other guess is, after President Romney takes office and has a full forensic accounting of all our business and finances, we will find that the rate is much higher.

[Tom]

OK, Joe.:ThmbUp:

How d'ya like at Belmont today?

[Dave Schwartz]

The assessments in this thread are right on... and he will still get re-elected.

Get this... Let's say that Romney's 47% quote was wrong - because not all the people receiving aid and not paying taxes are beyond Republican reach. Certainly not veterans, social security recipients, etc.

However, there are, perhaps, 35% who fit the bill quite nicely. Those who long-term welfare recipients, and others who give little or nothing to the system; those who are a true draw down on society. (Should they be helped in some way? Yes, but that is not what this is about.)

The point is that these are the 35% that will, 95% of the time or more, vote for a democrat in the white house. Perhaps someone can dispute that number. I admit that it is a best guess for me; arrived at through logic.

Here is the real question: "How does Romney (or any future Republican candidate, for that matter) ever get 51% of the remaining 65%?"

In other words, how does a Republican candidate capture 78% of the "truly available" voters? (51 / 65 = 78%)

I do not see how it is possible.

But wait, there is more.

The Presidency is based upon the electoral college, which is highly concentrated around big, urban centers. In other words, there are lots of electoral votes produced because of carrying LA county, NYC, Boston, urban Pennsylvania, Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.

I would guess that the percentage of "dole participants" is much higher in those areas - perhaps over 50%. This absolutely removes any possibility of a win in those arenas.

So, my opinion is that we may never have another Republican president, just as California will probably never have another (truly) Republican governor.

Just my opinion.

Please, tell me why I am wrong. PLEASE!

[ArlJim78]

the only thing good about this jobs report is that Obama will try to spin them as a positive during the next debate, and Romney is going to pummel him on it with the reality.

Dave, one thing about the urban centers and California is that they are losing population. the conditions are so bad that many are leaving for better opportunites in other states and cities.

[pandy]

Dave, then how do you explain the Republicans thorough victory in the midterm elections, they gained 63 seats in the House. And then there's Christie in Jersey and Scott Brown in Massachusetts, McDonnell in Virginia from 2009 races.

In the 2010 Midterm Elections, the Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and six seats in the U.S. Senate from the Democratic Party. Republicans also gained six Governorships, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Republicans gained 680 seats in state legislatures, the most in the modern era. [1]

[Tom]

The jobs news is not good for everyone today.....

[RaceBookJoe]

Thanks for the props Pandy, but it wasnt rocket science that the job# would be manipulated..not that I am saying it was. I picked the 7.8 because 8.0 wouldnt be low enough, and 7.9 would have really sounded phony. I have read that many things have been re-classified as "having a job". There was a funny tweet from Rick Santelli this morning saying " people working at home selling their treasures on eBay do not constitute real jobs " :) Have read that if you exercise...thats a job, same with being a stay at home mom. Other jobs have been re-classified as green energy jobs like being a janitor at Solyndra would be a green job.

[RaceBookJoe]

The jobs news is not good for everyone today.....

Hilarious !! Big Bird wont be out of work, he just wont get funded by china, which i totally agree with.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, then how do you explain the Republicans thorough victory in the midterm elections

My opinion is that when it comes to the presidency, the 35%-ers know who their guy is, but the congressional elections are more confusing. (Ever noticed how the TV ads rarely show Repub or Dem affiliations in an obvious place?)

I guess I am saying that the 35% are not smart enough to figure out who the dems are.

Also, congress is not chosen by the electoral college.

Back to you... please show me I am wrong!

[highnote]

Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric tweeted this today:

"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers"

[RaceBookJoe]

OK, Joe.:ThmbUp:

How d'ya like at Belmont today?

Not sure about today...but might take a stab at Summer of Fun in the Ms. Grillo. She is a stablemate of my horse. Stable also had a nice winner yesterday in the 1st with Smooth Bert :)

[lamboguy]

Not sure about today...but might take a stab at Summer of Fun in the Ms. Grillo. She is a stablemate of my horse. Stable also had a nice winner yesterday in the 1st with Smooth Bert :)nice call on the employment numbers

[mostpost]

Quit crying. There is no manipulation of numbers. The new unemployment rate is 7.8%. There are not less people looking for work there are more. This week 418,000 joined or returned to the job market.

And, the U6 rate (That's the one which includes those who have stopped looking) is now 14.7%. That's down 1.7% since last September. It's the same as in August, but down three tenths from July.

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd. Bad news for you that is.

[Tom]

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd.

Obama?

But surely you know this number will be adjusted upwards, right?
Always goes up in a little bit, but NEVER gets headlines.

Still, we need 250,000 a month to recover.......not even close.

And yes, I am 100% certain the nubmers are bogus.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Team Romney needs to take a page from the incumbent's strategists and float the notion that hiring literally happened overnight as a reaction to the debate... :p

[RaceBookJoe]

Quit crying. There is no manipulation of numbers. The new unemployment rate is 7.8%. There are not less people looking for work there are more. This week 418,000 joined or returned to the job market.

And, the U6 rate (That's the one which includes those who have stopped looking) is now 14.7%. That's down 1.7% since last September. It's the same as in August, but down three tenths from July.

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd. Bad news for you that is.

I see the numbers too, but coming from someone who actually believes that 0bama won the debate..i just cant take you seriously, sorry no offense.

[Dave Schwartz]

I see the numbers too, but coming from someone who actually believes that 0bama won the debate..i just cant take you seriously, sorry no offense

Polite, concise, accurate.

:ThmbUp:

[pandy]

My opinion is that when it comes to the presidency, the 35%-ers know who their guy is, but the congressional elections are more confusing. (Ever noticed how the TV ads rarely show Repub or Dem affiliations in an obvious place?)

I guess I am saying that the 35% are not smart enough to figure out who the dems are.

Also, congress is not chosen by the electoral college.

Back to you... please show me I am wrong!

The Tea Party is vastly underestimated by the mainstream media; it's a powerful political force.

[Tom]

Team Romney needs to take a page from the incumbent's strategists and float the notion that hiring literally happened overnight as a reaction to the debate... :p

It is true!
Gas went down 9 cents overnight here.
The pot holes in our roads disappeared.
My friends that hunt tell me the deer are literally jumping into their trucks and slitting their own throats.
Bread stays fresher two weeks longer now.
Butter has no calories anymore.

We have been delivered.

[Dave Schwartz]

Meanwhile, we're up 30 cents in 4 days!

They sight the oil refinery problems in CA as the reason.

[highnote]

Meanwhile, we're up 30 cents in 4 days!

They sight the oil refinery problems in CA as the reason.


QE3 (QE infinity) might be part of the cause. Inflation is rearing it's ugly head.

[LottaKash]

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd. Bad news for you that is.

No Mostpost, for "US", and that will include you...You are going to get F'd too !!...

You are just not smart or perceptive enough to see the real truth that is staring us all in the eye....

Later in your life, when what is about to happen, if he gets re-elected, will happen, it is then and only then I'm afraid that you will then wonder what you were thinking at the time...

You sir, are an ignorant "mouse"....You just don't get it...

[ceejay]

Whenever a new set of jobs numbers is announced, it is important to keep in mind just how noisy the data can be.

Forecasts of the monthly growth in nonfarm payrolls miss by 68,000 jobs on average. That means that the margin of error on the forecasts, enough to cover 95 percent of all possible outcomes, is wider still: plus or minus about 170,000 jobs.

This is not merely because economic forecasting is difficult. It is also because the economy is a hard thing to measure, and the initial estimates of jobs growth are crude. On average, the initial monthly jobs numbers are eventually revised upward or downward by 70,000 jobs http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/jobs-news-makes-obamas-case-easier/

[badcompany]

I believe that, against all odds, the economy is recovering, despite, not because, of Obama.

When the Pubs took the house back in 2010, they put the brakes on the train to Pinkoville, and therefore gave the economy a chance to recover on its own. To get out of a recession, what you need is patience. Government intervention just makes things worse.

Had Obama and his ilk been allowed free reign, we'd be looking at something similar to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19784062

Eurozone unemployment at fresh high

Unemployment in the eurozone hit a fresh high of 18.2 million in August, the EU statistics agency has said.

The number out of work rose by 34,000, but after the July data was revised up, it meant the unemployment rate remained stable at a record high of 11.4%.

[ceejay]

Eurozone unemployment at fresh high

Unemployment in the eurozone hit a fresh high of 18.2 million in August, the EU statistics agency has said.

The number out of work rose by 34,000, but after the July data was revised up, it meant the unemployment rate remained stable at a record high of 11.4%.
Just my opinion, but I think that this shows how well austerity during a recession works.

[badcompany]

Just my opinion, but I think that this shows how well austerity during a recession works.

What austerity are you talking about?

In Spain, all they did was raise taxes. There was no reduction in the size of government.

In Greece, they raised the retirement age a few years and there was rioting.

Do you know that only 7% of the top 100 tech companies are European? Why? Because the anti-capitalist mentality has killed Entreprenuership.

The European welfare state has been living off the 100+ year old companies that were created during the industrial revolution, but that's over. There are many millions of people in China, India etc. who have the same skills and aren't spoiled, whiners.

[FantasticDan]

And yes, I am 100% certain the nubmers are bogus. :lol: :bang:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526845/on-jobs-numbers-bls-vows-theres-no-conspiracy/

:sleeping:

[bigmack]

:lol: :bang:

Nick work. Crack out the party hats.

Happy days are here again.

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/obama-epic-failure-poster.jpg

[ElKabong]

Dave, then how do you explain the Republicans thorough victory in the midterm elections, they gained 63 seats in the House. And then there's Christie in Jersey and Scott Brown in Massachusetts, McDonnell in Virginia from 2009 races.

. [1]

Because Dave has overlooked the obvious. Of his 35% mentioned, many are ineligible to vote, or never do vote. Of that 35% that are chronically on welfare there are many felons.

That eliminates someone from voting. Also, if you take away 2008 many of these 35% aren't very in tune to politics as a whole. The "free obama pho' " woman for instance.....do you think she voted in 2010? ...."Oh, the city council #4 seat is up for grabs. I think I'll sit down and intelligently look at these candidates to find out who is best for my community."

It's going to come down to whether or not Obama can get the "Free Pho" people out again. If not, he's screwed.

[pandy]

I do think that the Republican turnout is going to be huge this time around.

[ElKabong]

Forgot to give props to Joe! :ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

Because Dave has overlooked the obvious. Of his 35% mentioned, many are ineligible to vote, or never do vote. Of that 35% that are chronically on welfare there are many felons.


Bong,

THANK YOU! A ray of hope!

Never thought of that. Still, it looks like a tough, uphill battle.

[thaskalos]

I've got money down on Obama at 1/2 odds...and I sleep like a baby at night.

[acorn54]

didn't clinton pass a welfare law that no one can collect welfare for more than two years. i thought that the motivation was to stop the culture of welfare from the government.
another thing, all incumbant politicians paint a rosy picture of how things are doing, it is not just this president. the government stats are rigged to put the best light possible on inflation, unemployment, and all the other economic indicators.

[ElKabong]

didn't clinton pass a welfare law that no one can collect welfare for more than two years. .

He didn't pass a law that said you can't get back on unemployment after a few months on a job after your 2 years were up

also, much abuse goes on in the system.....but folks can go on unemployment for 2 yrs and get back on at some point

[Striker]

but folks can go on unemployment for 2 yrs and get back on at some point
The 99 weeks of unemployment benefits stopped in late May for all but 3 states and now no state offers 99 weeks. Pretty sure in 2013 it will be back to the normal of 26 weeks for each person receiving them.

[upthecreek]

Quit crying. There is no manipulation of numbers. The new unemployment rate is 7.8%. There are not less people looking for work there are more. This week 418,000 joined or returned to the job market.

And, the U6 rate (That's the one which includes those who have stopped looking) is now 14.7%. That's down 1.7% since last September. It's the same as in August, but down three tenths from July.

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd. Bad news for you that is.

If the number of people that were in the job force was the same when Obama took office,the unemployment rate would be 11%+
If anyone thinks they didnt "cook" the books is naive.
Doesnt hurt that 2 of his biggest supporters/donors sit on the BLS(known now as BS)

[witchdoctor]

Quit crying. There is no manipulation of numbers. The new unemployment rate is 7.8%. There are not less people looking for work there are more. This week 418,000 joined or returned to the job market.

And, the U6 rate (That's the one which includes those who have stopped looking) is now 14.7%. That's down 1.7% since last September. It's the same as in August, but down three tenths from July.

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd. Bad news for you that is.

The unemployment numbers have not been manipulated! The government hired 800,000 IRS and EPA agents the other day! :lol:

[RaceBookJoe]

You also have to keep in mind a couple of things. All of the summer stay-at-home parents probably re-entered now that kids are back in school, how many of these jobs are seasonal temp jobs ( Halloween,Christmas etc ) and at what pay. I think if somebody is having to work 2-3 part-time jobs..then no, they are NOT better off than they were.

[dartman51]

If you watch the numbers for the weekly NEW sign ups for unemployment, they have been running between 350,000 and 375,000, for a long time. I have a hard time believing that adding 114,000 new jobs can bring down the unemployment rate. Why didn't the U6 rate come down as well? :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

If you watch the numbers for the weekly NEW sign ups for unemployment, they have been running between 350,000 and 375,000, for a long time. I have a hard time believing that adding 114,000 new jobs can bring down the unemployment rate. Why didn't the U6 rate come down as well? :ThmbUp:
U3 and U6 do not always run in lockstep. There have been nine times during Obama's term that they moved in different directions or did not move at all.

[Lefty]

I heard the 25 economists at the Wall St Journal predicted the job growth in Sept to be 113,000. They said that would translate to 8.3 unemployment.
They practically nailed it at 114,000 but now the unemployment no. is 7.8?
Doesn't jibe. I am smelling some cooking and it ain't grandmother's.

[bigmack]

The assessments in this thread are right on... and he will still get re-elected.

Get this... Let's say that Romney's 47% quote was wrong - because not all the people receiving aid and not paying taxes are beyond Republican reach. Certainly not veterans, social security recipients, etc.

However, there are, perhaps, 35% who fit the bill quite nicely. Those who long-term welfare recipients, and others who give little or nothing to the system; those who are a true draw down on society. (Should they be helped in some way? Yes, but that is not what this is about.)

The point is that these are the 35% that will, 95% of the time or more, vote for a democrat in the white house. Perhaps someone can dispute that number. I admit that it is a best guess for me; arrived at through logic.

Here is the real question: "How does Romney (or any future Republican candidate, for that matter) ever get 51% of the remaining 65%?"

In other words, how does a Republican candidate capture 78% of the "truly available" voters? (51 / 65 = 78%)

I do not see how it is possible.

But wait, there is more.

The Presidency is based upon the electoral college, which is highly concentrated around big, urban centers. In other words, there are lots of electoral votes produced because of carrying LA county, NYC, Boston, urban Pennsylvania, Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.

I would guess that the percentage of "dole participants" is much higher in those areas - perhaps over 50%. This absolutely removes any possibility of a win in those arenas.

So, my opinion is that we may never have another Republican president, just as California will probably never have another (truly) Republican governor.

Just my opinion.

Please, tell me why I am wrong. PLEASE!
Your post is from 3 days ago.

Have any questions about what might happen now?

The train has just left the station in terms of Mo-mentum.

I'd still be willing to take your $1K?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/DidObamaJustThrowTheEntireElectionAway--TheDish-ByAndrewSullivan-TheDailyBeast.png
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html

[highnote]

If the number of people that were in the job force was the same when Obama took office,the unemployment rate would be 11%+
If anyone thinks they didnt "cook" the books is naive.
Doesnt hurt that 2 of his biggest supporters/donors sit on the BLS(known now as BS)


I suggest you read this explanation from a John Mauldin, a highly respected conservative leaning economist, before you accuse the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the books:

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/

(full text at link)

You Know You Were Surprised

Like anybody else who is paying attention to the current economic situation, I was surprised when the headlines said that unemployment had dropped to 7.8%. A drop of that magnitude does not seem to be historically consistent with an economy growing less than 2%, with job growth – at least as measured by the Establishment Survey – barely keeping up with population growth, or with tax receipts that were relatively flat for the last month. My immediate reaction was "Show me the data." There was clearly going to be something interesting lurking down among the details. And there was.

Before we wade into the data, though, I want to analyze the reaction. What if someone said, "The military is manipulating the data from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to help the election of the current administration," (whether Republican or Democrat)? The appropriate response to such a statement would be to suggest that such a characterization was demeaning to the professionalism and integrity of our military professionals. I think it is doubtful that a statement like that would get much airplay or gain much credence in the public discourse. The military is a well-respected institution in the United States.

Yet we seemingly dismiss quite easily the professionalism of the employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics when their data doesn't fit our perceptions of reality. Let's look at what they do. First and foremost, they collect data. In regards to employment data, they do two surveys. The first is the Establishment Survey, which polls 400,000 companies about the number of employees they have, whether they are full-time and part-time, and other details (along with income data). Then there is the Household Survey, which asks 60,000 households each month how many people live in the household and who is working, again distinguishing between full-time and part-time. If the job is part-time, they try to determine whether the part-time work is voluntary or whether it is for economic reasons, such as poor business conditions or because the person could only find part-time work. If a person does not have a job, they try to determine whether they have looked for a job wit hin the past month or the past year.

[RaceBookJoe]

Not sure about today...but might take a stab at Summer of Fun in the Ms. Grillo. She is a stablemate of my horse. Stable also had a nice winner yesterday in the 1st with Smooth Bert :)

Hey Tom, Summer of Fun was scratched out of the Ms. Grillo on monday...shipped to Keeneland for todays Jessamine. Should give a decent run, be nice to get back to the Breeders Cup like last year :)

[tbwinner]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49372827

"Why Jobless Claims May Not Be as Good as Market Thinks"

[Valuist]

Latest rumor is that one very large, borderline bankrupt, western state didn't have their claims data in on time.

[LottaKash]

Latest rumor is that one very large, borderline bankrupt, western state didn't have their claims data in on time.

That is correct Valuist.....I am quite surprised that no one made mention of this sooner than now...

California, failed to submit their Jobs and unemployment report at the required time....So it was not included in that report...

And, it was conveniently not mentioned (at all) with an asterisk or something.....There were 23,000 new additional unemployment claims made, in California, during this time period...

Omisission is not the sin, "not mentioning it", was, imo.....:ThmbDown:

[RaceBookJoe]

Latest rumor is that one very large, borderline bankrupt, western state didn't have their claims data in on time.

CNBC was on that story the other day actually, but yes it wasnt made out to be a big story so far.

[Valuist]

CNBC was on that story the other day actually, but yes it wasnt made out to be a big story so far.

Seen that California is the 8th biggest economy in the world, why wouldn't it? Because CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and MSNBC don't want the truth reported.

[Valuist]

Voila, unemployment claims up 46k. Obviously the previous number was totally fraudulent.

[lamboguy]

anything that has to do with this president's administration has been complete bull shit, why should this be any different than any thing else?

as far as i am concerned, if this election is on the up and and up, and i know it doesn't have to be, getting 2-1 on Romney is like stealing.

[highnote]

Voila, unemployment claims up 46k. Obviously the previous number was totally fraudulent.


I am not a fan of this admin, but I do NOT think the previous number was fraudulent. These numbers, like many gov numbers, are revised as more information becomes known. It would take too many people to conspire to pull off a fraud of this magnitude -- thousands of people -- there would be at least one whistleblower.

It has nothing to do with fraud and everything with the way the data are compiled.

Here is my post about this last week:

"I suggest you read this explanation from a John Mauldin, a highly respected conservative leaning economist, before you accuse the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the books:

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/

(full text at link)"


You Know You Were Surprised

Like anybody else who is paying attention to the current economic situation, I was surprised when the headlines said that unemployment had dropped to 7.8%. A drop of that magnitude does not seem to be historically consistent with an economy growing less than 2%, with job growth – at least as measured by the Establishment Survey – barely keeping up with population growth, or with tax receipts that were relatively flat for the last month. My immediate reaction was "Show me the data." There was clearly going to be something interesting lurking down among the details. And there was.

Before we wade into the data, though, I want to analyze the reaction. What if someone said, "The military is manipulating the data from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to help the election of the current administration," (whether Republican or Democrat)? The appropriate response to such a statement would be to suggest that such a characterization was demeaning to the professionalism and integrity of our military professionals. I think it is doubtful that a statement like that would get much airplay or gain much credence in the public discourse. The military is a well-respected institution in the United States.

Yet we seemingly dismiss quite easily the professionalism of the employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics when their data doesn't fit our perceptions of reality. Let's look at what they do. First and foremost, they collect data. In regards to employment data, they do two surveys. The first is the Establishment Survey, which polls 400,000 companies about the number of employees they have, whether they are full-time and part-time, and other details (along with income data). Then there is the Household Survey, which asks 60,000 households each month how many people live in the household and who is working, again distinguishing between full-time and part-time. If the job is part-time, they try to determine whether the part-time work is voluntary or whether it is for economic reasons, such as poor business conditions or because the person could only find part-time work. If a person does not have a job, they try to determine whether they have looked for a job wit hin the past month or the past year.

[highnote]

Voila, unemployment claims up 46k. Obviously the previous number was totally fraudulent.

This quite from a June column by John Mauldin explains the unemployment revisions:



US Unemployment Turns Back South

The US unemployment numbers for May were released this morning, and they were rather dismal. Mainstream economists were expecting something on the order of 150,000 new jobs, but they came in sharply lower at 69,000. March and April estimates were revised down 50,000. As long-time readers know, I pay as much or more attention to the direction of the revisions than to the actual monthly numbers, as the direction of the revision is a reasonable leading indicator. And what it indicates is what I was writing four months ago: we are in for another summer of poor jobs growth.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mauldin-on-deflation-inflation-and-what-comes-next-2012-6#ixzz29fYFbXzU

[RaceBookJoe]

So where are all of those jobs????

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-inflated-jobs-claim-184609682--politics.html

[JustRalph]

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

Jack Welch called them out on this immediately and was lambasted.

Fudging the unemployment numbers prior to the election

[RaceBookJoe]

Quit crying. There is no manipulation of numbers. The new unemployment rate is 7.8%. There are not less people looking for work there are more. This week 418,000 joined or returned to the job market.

And, the U6 rate (That's the one which includes those who have stopped looking) is now 14.7%. That's down 1.7% since last September. It's the same as in August, but down three tenths from July.

Expect more bad news on Nov. 2nd. Bad news for you that is.

:lol:

[classhandicapper]

This is no shock. The government has been manipulating the inflation, GDP, employment and other economic numbers since at least Clinton and probably before that.

[Valuist]

Mostie-

How's that crow taste?

[pandy]

The unemployment rate that the gov't reports is an insult to our intelligence.

[FantasticDan]

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
Jack Welch called them out on this immediately and was lambasted. Fudging the unemployment numbers prior to the election :D :rolleyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/unemployment-rate-faked_n_4302907.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[mostpost]

:D :rolleyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/unemployment-rate-faked_n_4302907.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
For those of you who won't read the Huffington Post story-which is all of you on the right-this is what it said.
1. Julius Buckmon, the employee who allegedly made up numbers in 2010-two years before the 2012 election-left the employ of the Census bureau in August of 2011. Which would make it difficult for him to make up numbers in 2012.

2. The jobs report uses 2,200 employees to survey 60,000 households which means it would require a lot of dishonest employees working in concert to affect the report.

3. The 0.3 drop is not particularly an outlier as rates have been slowly but steadily going down. HP noted a 0.3 decline from October to November 2011 and there was also a 0.3 Decline from April to May of 2010 and an even larger
0.5 decline from November to December of 2011.

And the rate has continued to drop since the alleged "scandal" took place and is currently 7.3%

Shakespeare had it right. "Much Ado About Nothing."

[mostpost]

The unemployment rate that the gov't reports is an insult to our intelligence.You insult your own intelligence every time you listen to those liars on the right.

[JustRalph]

The unemployment rate that the gov't reports is an insult to our intelligence.

That's the real truth no matter who you choose to believe.

[pandy]

You insult your own intelligence every time you listen to those liars on the right.


Most, you know that they changed the way they chart these numbers. If they did it like years ago the rate would be much higher. And I realize that not all of the people who stopped looking for work should be counted, because some would have retired anyway, but in the last 4 years millions of people stopped looking for work because they just gave up.

[JustRalph]

You insult your own intelligence every time you listen to those liars on the right.

It's working!!

[PaceAdvantage]

You insult your own intelligence every time you listen to those liars on the right.Is that a bit of desperation I sense in your voice when you say "those liars?" Nah, it's probably just wishful thinking...

I do sense a bit of a crack though...can't say I blame you...smooth sailing it ain't for fans of our dear leader these days...