Unemployment rate poll [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment rate poll


pipedreams
10-05-2012, 15:01
The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September. What’s your take on this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/multimedia-release-two-global-hawk-192849572.html

Bottom right of page.


Current numbers:

It assures President Obama's re-election (8604)
9%

It's proof the economy is improving (21280)
22%

It's temporary, the worst isn't over (11403)
12%

I don't trust the numbers (55030)
57%

IvanVic
10-05-2012, 15:16
It's likely indicative of people who were looking for work giving up, in combination with some of those people finding jobs.

hogship
10-05-2012, 15:35
The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September. What’s your take on this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/multimedia-release-two-global-hawk-192849572.html

Bottom right of page.


Current numbers:

It assures President Obama's re-election (8604)
9%

It's proof the economy is improving (21280)
22%

It's temporary, the worst isn't over (11403)
12%

I don't trust the numbers (55030)
57%



I don't trust the numbers either.......

ooc

pipedreams
10-05-2012, 15:48
I don't trust the numbers either.......

ooc
Looks like 57% so far agree with you.

JFrame
10-05-2012, 15:54
I don't trust the numbers either.......

ooc


It looks like we won't have much trouble reaching a consensus...


.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 15:58
Take a close look at what sector had the largest growth, and one of the largest surges in it's history.

It was



Government.

something fishy here?

JFrame
10-05-2012, 16:02
Take a close look at what sector had the largest growth, and one of the largest surges in it's history.

It was



Government.

something fishy here?


And 16,000 of those were with the IRS...Not just fishy, but scary as spit...


.

fx77
10-05-2012, 16:03
Numbers cannot be real. Look at the labor participation rate...also the best #'s in 40 years...??? I don't think sooooo

LASTRESORT20
10-05-2012, 16:05
`Debate gone sour for obammy and the Left? No problem....Finagle the numbers for the unemployment report to keep `em under 8....`then brag` on the lies and hope no one looks to closely and keep the stupid.... stupid.

JFrame
10-05-2012, 16:06
Jack Welch is a man whose opinion I personally regard highly, and he's not buying it...

http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-obama-jobs-report-numbers-romney-2012-10


.

PocketProtector
10-05-2012, 16:06
It's likely indicative of people who were looking for work giving up, in combination with some of those people finding jobs.

It's indicative of ChicagO corruption.

rgregoryb
10-05-2012, 16:06
Something stinks....................................smells like books cooking.

GAFinch
10-05-2012, 16:43
Reminds me of Soviet grain reports.

JFrame
10-05-2012, 16:45
Reminds me of Soviet grain reports.

Or Mao's reports of farm pigs the size of pick-up trucks...


.

Fed Five Oh
10-05-2012, 17:21
Smells like desperation.

rgregoryb
10-05-2012, 17:33
maybe even flintlicker will be able to discern the falsehoods in this report, and then again maybe not

SPIN2010
10-05-2012, 17:34
Why would this lie be any different than any other out of this administration? :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 18:21
Nothing more than a monumental all out failed attempt at an October surprise.

Pink unicorns and marshmallow trees perpetrated by Barry's disciples.

IvanVic
10-05-2012, 20:35
It's indicative of ChicagO corruption.

Who do you think calculates the unemployment rate?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IvanVic
10-05-2012, 20:37
Jack Welch is a man whose opinion I personally regard highly, and he's not buying it...

http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-obama-jobs-report-numbers-romney-2012-10


.

Lou Dobbs was laughing at this earlier on Fox. Still an iconic executive, Welch is getting old.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

brianfede
10-05-2012, 20:46
Numbers cannot be real. Look at the labor participation rate...also the best #'s in 40 years...??? I don't think sooooo


BINGO, that is the problem with believing the 7.8% rate, despite the creation government jobs. I will say that the month of August usually has the largest revisions and sometimes we get odd numbers in September. The UE rate is still mostly a BS stat since it doesn't account for those who have given up on looking for a job. I think if you take the historical participation rate as a reference the UE is really more like 11%. Underemployment is also a big issue, that number has been awfully high as well .

DOC44
10-06-2012, 00:11
Bull crap numbers............. democrat/liberal manipulating liars.... and the people that think obama should have been able to use his teloprompter during the debate believe this crap. This just indicates the level of coruption in "our" government. We the people need to clean our houses.... representatives and white.

Doc44

aspartz
10-06-2012, 00:23
Just wait, those will be adjusted down soon...

ARS

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 04:44
Bull crap numbers............. democrat/liberal manipulating liars.... and the people that think obama should have been able to use his teloprompter during the debate believe this crap. This just indicates the level of coruption in "our" government. We the people need to clean our houses.... representatives and white.

Doc44

The same group of ppl will be calculating it when Romney is president. Will you still be calling it a conspiracy then?

I don't understand why a lack of understanding motivates ppl to come up with conspiracy theories.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

JBnTX
10-06-2012, 04:53
`Debate gone sour for obammy and the Left? No problem....Finagle the numbers for the unemployment report to keep `em under 8....`then brag` on the lies and hope no one looks to closely and keep the stupid.... stupid.


^This...:agree:

series1811
10-06-2012, 05:00
The same group of ppl will be calculating it when Romney is president. Will you still be calling it a conspiracy then?

I don't understand why a lack of understanding motivates ppl to come up with conspiracy theories.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I don't understand why the standard liberal response here is that the rest of us, are just not smart enough to see things the way the liberal do.

Historically, governments lie to promote their own interests. They even have a word for it (since you're so smart tell us what it is for an extra point).

But, Obama, by what we have seen of his actions so far, is clearly incapable of telling a lie, or being part of one told. :wow:

G29Reload
10-06-2012, 05:13
With only 114,000 jobs added, thats not even enough to move the meter 1/10th of a percent, much less 3/10ths.

Top it off with them saying not many left the workforce and it does not add up.

Continuing weekly claims for UI continue to hang just below 400,000. They need to be below 200,000 for a sustained period with increasing labor force participation.

Economic growth continues to hang at a pathetic 1.x %. It needs to be over 4%. Under Reagan, who wipe out a recession twice as bad with 21% interest rates in only 2 years, growth was at or approaching 6% !!!

U6 is at 14.7%, they've been undercounting by at least 1% and possibly as much as 3 % for a couple of years now. Would not be surprised if the real U6 is 16-18%.

Bren
10-06-2012, 05:22
`Debate gone sour for obammy and the Left? No problem....Finagle the numbers for the unemployment report to keep `em under 8....`then brag` on the lies and hope no one looks to closely and keep the stupid.... stupid.

That's what I'm thinking. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf):
For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1 and 8.3 percent.
And right before election time, with the press saying "over 8% is really bad for Obama," suddenly:
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September.
Really stayed within a 0.3 point range for 8 months, then falls .3 below the bottom of that range just in time for the election? Could happen.

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 05:27
I don't understand why the standard liberal response here is that the rest of us, are just not smart enough to see things the way the liberal do.


Explaining that the BLS, not some evil plotting table of democrats, are the people who calculate the unemployment, is now considered a "liberal response?" Seriously?



Historically, governments lie to promote their own interests.

But, Obama, by what we have seen of his actions so far, is clearly incapable of telling a lie, or being part of one told. :wow:

The BLS have no vested interest in lying - they're going to be calculating the rate when Romney is President, as they have been in the past, and as they will continue to do in the future.

Your cartoonish idea of Obama overseeing a table of democrats who craft the unemployment numbers out of thin air is not only laughable, it's just counterproductive because surely some dope on the left will be saying the same thing when the rates drop under Romney - only this time it will be a republican conspiracy. Amazingly enough, I'm sure you'll be calling that dope a foolish liberal, despite the fact that you were doing the same thing a few short months before.

series1811
10-06-2012, 05:29
Explaining that the BLS, not some evil plotting table of democrats, are the people who calculate the unemployment, is now considered a "liberal response?" Seriously?




The BLS have no vested interest in lying - they're going to be calculating the rate when Romney is President, as they have been in the past, and as they will continue to do in the future.

Your cartoonish idea of Obama overseeing a table of democrats who craft the unemployment numbers out of thin air is not only laughable, it's just counterproductive because surely some dope on the left will be saying the same thing when the rates drop under Romney - only this time it will be a republican conspiracy. Amazingly enough, I'm sure you'll be calling that dope a foolish liberal, despite the fact that you were doing the same thing a few short months before.

You don't know the word, do you?

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 05:31
You don't know the word, do you?

Seeing that you completely ignored everything I said, I don't think you're really interested in having an adult conversation. If you want to divert and change the subject, don't bother responding to me.

G29Reload
10-06-2012, 05:39
The BLS have no vested interest in lying - they're going to be calculating the rate when Romney is President, as they have been in the past, and as they will continue to do in the future.


This sets a new record in naiveté.

The DOL is another bloated government agency who's employees depend on government for their jobs. I don't doubt for one second they'll amp it up for the Government candidate.

Obama didn't have to tell them a damn thing. They know what's required of them if they want to keep their jobs. Make idiot boy look good.

series1811
10-06-2012, 05:40
Seeing that you completely ignored everything I said, I don't think you're really interested in having an adult conversation. If you want to divert and change the subject, don't bother responding to me.

Okay, you don't know it, or you just don't want to say it? :supergrin:

It's okay.

G29Reload
10-06-2012, 05:41
Seeing that you completely ignored everything I said,

Sounds like a good idea.

DOC44
10-06-2012, 06:02
The same group of ppl will be calculating it when Romney is president. Will you still be calling it a conspiracy then?

I don't understand why a lack of understanding motivates ppl to come up with conspiracy theories.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

If Romney's people come up with a .3 or .4 drop with only a 1K increase in jobs; YES I will be calling them on it. This is political lying and I don't understand you think I would be as foolishly biased for "my party" as you are for yours.

Doc44

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 06:04
This sets a new record in naiveté.

The DOL is another bloated government agency who's employees depend on government for their jobs. I don't doubt for one second they'll amp it up for the Government candidate.

Obama didn't have to tell them a damn thing. They know what's required of them if they want to keep their jobs. Make idiot boy look good.

So the unemployment rate has been a conspiracy for decades?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 06:07
If Romney's people come up with a .3 or .4 drop with only a 1K increase in jobs; YES I will be calling them on it. This is political lying and I don't understand you think I would be as foolishly biased for "my party" as you are for yours.

Doc44

And were you questioning the numbers when they went up, and not down? My guess is that you were using them to point to a bad economy when they were bad, and claiming conspiracy when they improved.

I like the added touch of claiming that I'm a liberal. When you can't argue on facts, demonize your opponent, right?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DOC44
10-06-2012, 06:08
So the unemployment rate has been a conspiracy for decades?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

YES, when the actual rate has been above 11 for two or three years..... yes.

Doc44

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 06:21
YES, when the actual rate has been above 11 for two or three years..... yes.

Doc44

When was the last time it was not a conspiracy?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

rgregoryb
10-06-2012, 06:38
One question Ivan, are you voting for Obama?

onebigelf
10-06-2012, 06:44
The analysts were talking about the report before it came out, predicting the same job numbers, but predicting an INCREASE to 8.2%. Instead it falls 0.3%? Even MSNBC's Morning Joe said the numbers don't add up.

If I had to guess? I'd say Obama added in everyone's temporary campaign workers.

"We know... that these people are there... and their working hard, too... and it's not fair... not to count their efforts as working... even if they may or may not be getting paid. So...vote for ME!"

John

Ruble Noon
10-06-2012, 06:50
Who could have saw this coming.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1445315

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 06:55
One question Ivan, are you voting for Obama?

Hell f'in no. Have you been reading my posts?

Is this the alternative universe that we live in now, where understanding basic concepts has been politicized?

When you deem everything to be a conspiracy, then there's no reality. What's the point in ever citing unemployment numbers when you have concluded that it's all a massive conspiracy? You've basically lost the ability to show how bad unemployment has been, and still is (7.8 is NOT good) under Obama because you have now deemed the numbers to be completely fabricated.

Of course, I don't believe that to be happening here. What I see happening here is a denial of the numbers when they improve, and treating them like gospel when they get worse.

In order for this type of mentality to have a breeding ground, you basically have to have a limited capacity to understand the economy to the point that you think any given president's philosophy and the unemployment rate are inherently dependent upon one another. That is a false assumption, as there are thousands of working pieces in the economy, and simplifying it in such a way that has no real goal other than dumbing down a complex issue is a disservice to the idea that unemployment numbers can, in many circumstances, actually reflect the policies of any given administration.

marchboom
10-06-2012, 07:01
Believe anything that comes from this corrupt obama crime syndicate? You got to be kidding. I'm just surprised obama didn't ORDER the numbers to be much lower. :steamed:

rgregoryb
10-06-2012, 07:11
Hell f'in no. Have you been reading my posts?



I was trying to figure out how someone with an IQ above room temp. could rationalize how the addition of 114,000 jobs could drop the rate .3 %.

I did graduate from UGA where math was secondary, but c'mon my grandchildren could figure this out.

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 07:19
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

That's a link to monthly unemployment figures since 2002. Let's focus on Obama's numbers. We all know that Obama promised unemployment would not go over 8% if the stimulus was passed, so apparently it's been a conspiracy designed to hurt the President nearly his entire administration. However, let's take a closer look at the chart:

Unemployment got worse from January through October of 2009. So at this point, it was a conspiracy to hurt Obama.

In Nov 2009, it improved by .1, going from 10% to 9.9% and falling as low as 9.7 in January of 2010, a conspiracy to help Obama.

But in february of 2010, it went back up to 9.8%, a conspiracy to hurt Obama.

But wait, it went up again to 9.9% in april of 2010, another conspiracy to hurt Obama.

However, in May of 2010, it dropped to 9.6%, a conspiracy to help Obama.

But it August, it went up again, a conspiracy to hurt Obama.

Then it went back down to 9.5, a conspiracy to help Obama.

But it went back up again from 9.5 to 9.8 in November of 2010, a conspiracy to hurt Obama.

And so on and so forth.

Either we have a panel of wishy-washy, schizophrenic people controlling the unemployment rate, or conspiracy theorists are just stupid. I wonder which it is?

Ruble Noon
10-06-2012, 07:50
So the unemployment rate has been a conspiracy for decades?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Since the Clinton administration, yes.

JFrame
10-06-2012, 07:51
Lou Dobbs was laughing at this earlier on Fox. Still an iconic executive, Welch is getting old.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Welch was held in extremely high esteem by those who knew him at G.E. -- unlike the current occupant of that post, Jeffrey Immelt.


.

MLM
10-06-2012, 07:55
The UE rate is still mostly a BS stat since it doesn't account for those who have given up on looking for a job.In today's newspaper it says

"Those who do not have jobs and are looking are counted as unemployed. Those who aren't looking are not considered part of the work force and aren't counted as unemployed."

The first makes sense.
The second part, I dunno.

Rabid Rabbit
10-06-2012, 07:56
The day after the election the "revised" numbers will be released and the reate will be "unexpectedly" 8.3%

JFrame
10-06-2012, 07:57
Talking about the U6 unemployment rate (the "real unemployment rate") of 14.7 percent on FNC right now...

Also talking about how a high percentage of jobs gained are government jobs, which don't create revenue but drain more tax dollars...


.

Rabid Rabbit
10-06-2012, 07:58
Or maybe obama supporters are taking heed to Leno's advice and simply stop looking for work to do their part to decrease the unemployment rate.

Ruble Noon
10-06-2012, 08:00
The day after the election the "revised" numbers will be released and the reate will be "unexpectedly" 8.3%

If Romney wins the number will be 14.7.

JFrame
10-06-2012, 08:03
Or maybe obama supporters are taking heed to Leno's advice and simply stop looking for work to do their part to decrease the unemployment rate.

Or also Dennis Miller's suggestion that, as the pace of Obama's entitlement handouts continue, more and more people will just come to the conclusion, "Why should I hustle and bust my butt while everyone else is getting a free ride? I'm just going to get mine too."


.

JFrame
10-06-2012, 08:03
If Romney wins the number will be 14.7.


Yup...!


.

ModGlock17
10-06-2012, 08:29
To get a sense of employment rate, look in the mirror, look at your neighbors and where their adult children live, look at people at church.


To get a sense of whether you're better off than yrs ago, look at your 401k, look at your property value, look at your bank account, and look at your credit scores.


Those are the grassroots methods, other than asking the cats how the mice are doing.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 08:43
Re: OP. This close to the Nov. election... simply not possible to believe any numbers put out by anyone. It would be exactly the same if the incumbent was republican.

MZBKA
10-06-2012, 08:59
If one understands what the BLS' data tell us, then he understands the the economy is improving at the slowest rate of any modern post-recession recovery. Very little in the latest BLS data should be a plus for Obama.

However, if one does not understand what the BLS data tell us, then he ignorantly believes that either
1. These data guarantee an Obama reelection, or
2. Obama personally oversees, checks, and alters the BLS's unemployment survey.

Ignorance begets conspiracy theories; this thread is a perfect example of that.

ModGlock17
10-06-2012, 09:40
.....

Ignorance begets conspiracy theories; this thread is a perfect example of that.

Nahh.

It just tells me people don't trust BHO. Simple.

And you're taking offense to that. Simple.

pipedreams
10-06-2012, 10:33
However, if one does not understand what the BLS data tell us, then he ignorantly believes that either
1. These data guarantee an Obama reelection, or
2. Obama personally oversees, checks, and alters the BLS's unemployment survey.

Ignorance begets conspiracy theories; this thread is a perfect example of that.
I don't think anyone believes point one or two but it does show the public does not trust the government to provide accurate information. The poll does demonstrate that 57% (77669)of the (133802) people taking the poll don't trust the numbers.

rgregoryb
10-06-2012, 11:27
If one understands what the BLS' data tell us, then he understands the the economy is improving at the slowest rate of any modern post-recession recovery. Very little in the latest BLS data should be a plus for Obama.

However, if one does not understand what the BLS data tell us, then he ignorantly believes that either
1. These data guarantee an Obama reelection, or
2. Obama personally oversees, checks, and alters the BLS's unemployment survey.

Ignorance begets conspiracy theories; this thread is a perfect example of that.

WOW, thank goodness you came and straightened all that out, I feel much better now :wavey:

#2 No, but an Obama appointee does.

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 12:16
Nahh.

It just tells me people don't trust BHO. Simple.

And you're taking offense to that. Simple.

So we are to assume Obama was overseeing a massive conspiracy for the last 3.8 years to keep unemployment well over 8% when he promised the stimulus would prevent just that?




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

MZBKA
10-06-2012, 12:46
I don't think anyone believes point one or two but it does show the public does not trust the government to provide accurate information. The poll does demonstrate that 57% (77669)of the (133802) people taking the poll don't trust the numbers.


The poll is an unscientific internet poll. It does not tell us anything about whether Americans trust the BLS' numbers.

pipedreams
10-06-2012, 13:43
The poll is an unscientific internet poll. It does not tell us anything about whether Americans trust the BLS' numbers.

Your correct it is a unscientific internet poll. So your saying those 133802 people are not entitled to their opinion?

series1811
10-06-2012, 13:49
Ignorance begets conspiracy theories; this thread is a perfect example of that.

Or a perfect example of liberals thinking that people who don't agree with them are ignorant.

We know you really believe that so we are getting used to it, even if it doesn't come across as powerfully as you might think as a debate tool.

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 14:13
Or a perfect example of liberals thinking that people who don't agree with them are ignorant.

We know you really believe that so we are getting used to it, even if it doesn't come across as powerfully as you might think as a debate tool.


So Obama was overseeing a massive conspiracy for the last 3.8 years to keep unemployment well over 8% when he promised the stimulus would prevent just that?

Poking holes in these ridiculous theories is like arguing with 9/11 truthers.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ModGlock17
10-06-2012, 16:50
So Obama was overseeing a massive conspiracy for the last 3.8 years to keep unemployment well over 8% when he promised the stimulus would prevent just that?

Poking holes in these ridiculous theories is like arguing with 9/11 truthers.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I just think you're thinking too much. Make it simple.

You called it ridiculous, yet you plunge yourself into the midst of that discussion, making yourself in the close proximity of that which is ridiculous. Then how are people going to know whether you're intrincally ridiculous or not ?

If it smells like pou-pou, I'd keep a distance. When pou-pou hits the fan and you're close to it... wow.

IvanVic
10-06-2012, 19:08
I just think you're thinking too much. Make it simple.

You called it ridiculous, yet you plunge yourself into the midst of that discussion, making yourself in the close proximity of that which is ridiculous. Then how are people going to know whether you're intrincally ridiculous or not ?

If it smells like pou-pou, I'd keep a distance. When pou-pou hits the fan and you're close to it... wow.

So again, why would Obama oversee a massive conspiracy for the last 3.8 years to keep unemployment well over 8% when he promised the stimulus would prevent just that?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

MZBKA
10-07-2012, 08:32
Or a perfect example of liberals thinking that people who don't agree with them are ignorant.

We know you really believe that so we are getting used to it, even if it doesn't come across as powerfully as you might think as a debate tool.

You're ignorant because you've demonstrated you don't know how to interpret unemployment numbers. Heck, when somebody tried to show you how to understand the numbers, you call him a liberal, which seems to be your response when anybody presents you with facts. Face it, you're happy with what you think and you don't let facts change your beliefs -the perfect example of a conspiracy theorist.

Also, why do you consistently refer to yourself in the first person plural? You keep saying 'we'. As the biggest conspiracy theorist on this forum, do you count yourself as more than one person? Do you have some sort of multiple personality disorder? Or are you so arrogant you think you speak for others on this forum?

MZBKA
10-07-2012, 08:35
Your correct it is a unscientific internet poll. So your saying those 133802 people are not entitled to their opinion?


Of course people are entitled to their own opinions. All I said was an unscientific internet poll gives no information as to whether American s trust or do not trust unemployment data.

MZBKA
10-07-2012, 08:37
So Obama was overseeing a massive conspiracy for the last 3.8 years to keep unemployment well over 8% when he promised the stimulus would prevent just that?

Poking holes in these ridiculous theories is like arguing with 9/11 truthers.



It also wouldn't make sense for Obama to have manipulated the numbers like he did-very little in the data is good news for him.

aircarver
10-07-2012, 08:44
So again, why would Obama oversee a massive conspiracy for the last 3.8 years to keep unemployment well over 8% when he promised the stimulus would prevent just that?


It's called 'implementing communism'

The unintended consequense of that is that the producers go 'John Galt' and produce minimally, and don't hire.

It continues as long as communism lasts, so the sooner it, and he are given the boot, the sooner we recover.

.

jlruiz32
10-07-2012, 08:49
Obama donors at the BLS.
http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

domin8ss
10-07-2012, 09:20
It has probably already been talked about. If not, I'm going to say it again. Unemployment numbers are not actual. They only count people actively looking for work through government run unemployment offices. People like me who have never sought assistance are not counted. Additionally, the under employment rate is more than double the unemployment rate. In my last job I would have been considered under employed.

Btw, look at unemployment rates by state and look at political status by state. Is there a correlation between red and blue states with the numbers being higher or lower?

pipedreams
10-07-2012, 10:21
Obama donors at the BLS.
http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

"At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama’s campaign. Harley Frazis (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Frazis&state=MD&zip=&employ=bureau+of+labor+statistics&cand=&c2012=Y&c2010=Y&c2008=Y&sort=N&capcode=hk83j&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query) of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. "

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 10:34
If Romney wins the number will be 14.7.

So what will you be saying when Romney wins and the number continues on a downward trend? Will you be back in here to revise your conspiracy theory and claim that it's morphed into an even more evil plot than before?

JFrame
10-07-2012, 10:37
So what will you be saying when Romney wins and the number continues on a downward trend? Will you be back in here to revise your conspiracy theory and claim that it's morphed into an even more evil plot than before?


He is saying that the MSM will suddenly shift gears and start quoting the U6 numbers with a GOP president.


.

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 10:39
He is saying that the MSM will suddenly shift gears and start quoting the U6 numbers with a GOP president.


.

Where did he say that? I quoted his entire post, I didn't see that clarification in there.

Also, why were they quoting 4.5% under Bush if it was a massive conspiracy against Republicans?

aircarver
10-07-2012, 10:40
When Romney wins, business will be released from the boot on the neck of communism, and unemployment will come down.

... But not before the real figures are revealed, and they will be much higher than Obamas' minions' cooked figures.

.

JFrame
10-07-2012, 10:46
Where did he say that? I quoted his entire post, I didn't see that clarification in there.

Also, why were they quoting 4.5% under Bush if it was a massive conspiracy against Republicans?

If you're citing that specific post, I don't see how you can infer anything more than what I said from seven words and a number.

And are you honestly arguing that the MSM didn't attack Bush at virtually every turn?

The release of a number dropping employment under 8 percent the day after Obama got his ass handed in a debate isn't remotely curious to you?


.

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 12:30
When Romney wins, business will be released from the boot on the neck of communism, and unemployment will come down.

... But not before the real figures are revealed, and they will be much higher than Obamas' minions' cooked figures.

.

If the BLS is an organization involved in a conspiracy, what does it matter what the "real" numbers are?

There seem to be quite an awful lot of contradictions here. First it was a conspiracy to help Obama (even though it makes him look bad because the rate has been above 8% for nearly his entire term), then Ruble Noon said the conspiracy will turn in the opposite direction under Romney and unemployment numbers will be shifted up, but then Aircarver says that the conspiracy will disappear under Romney and real numbers will be reported.

Which is it? Or, like all conspiracy theories, does it just morph to fit the agenda of the conspiracy theorist at any given time?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 12:37
If you're citing that specific post, I don't see how you can infer anything more than what I said from seven words and a number.

And are you honestly arguing that the MSM didn't attack Bush at virtually every turn?

The release of a number dropping employment under 8 percent the day after Obama got his ass handed in a debate isn't remotely curious to you?


.

Of course the media attacked president Bush. But unemployment was reported at a very low rate during most of his term, how does that fit into the conspiracy?

The numbers didn't just randomly come out after the debate, they come out every month around the same time. If the number had gone up and not down, nobody in this thread would have questioned it. The conspiracy disappears when the information agrees with the conspiracy theorists agenda, and suddenly reappears when things don't go their way. That's how every conspiracy works. Even after pointing out all of the contradictions, they're still blind to it.

If Obama can control the reporting of the unemployment figures with a snap of his fingers, why was it over 8% for the last 3.8 years when he promised that the stimulus would keep it below 8%?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

JFrame
10-07-2012, 12:51
Of course the media attacked president Bush. But unemployment was reported at a very low rate during most of his term, how does that fit into the conspiracy?

Not to say there IS a conspiracy -- but certainly the MSM felt they had enough talking points to attack Bush on, without falsifying or cooking employment numbers.

If Obama can control the reporting of the unemployment figures with a snap of his fingers, why was it over 8% for the last 3.8 years when he promised that the stimulus would keep it below 8%? Perhaps because they previously did not have an employment pretext with which they could actually cook the numbers with some plausible deniability. Also, it could just be strategy. It's hard to keep cooking numbers every month under scrutiny -- but a one-shot deal, especially after one suffers a disastrous and humiliating debate loss, might be deemed the perfect time.

Again -- I'm not necessarily asserting that there is a numbers-cooking conspiracy, but given the timeliness of the numbers report, to totally discount it as a possibility confers its own bias.

And as I remarked earlier -- I tend to give more credence to Jack Welch's opinions, in regard to the economy, than I do yours or mine.


.

Ruble Noon
10-07-2012, 13:11
So what will you be saying when Romney wins and the number continues on a downward trend? Will you be back in here to revise your conspiracy theory and claim that it's morphed into an even more evil plot than before?

Nothing conspiratorial about it. The unemployment rate has been under reported for quite some time and especially when a democrat is in office. Look how the reported 8 percent unemployment has become the new normal while 4.7 percent under Bush was a recession. 8% unemployment under Hussein has been labeled as fun employment, a chance to spend time with your family, a chance to pursue your dreams, a blessing. Same with gasoline prices, $3 a gallon under Bush was a travesty while gas pushing $6 a gallon under Hussein is acceptable.

domin8ss
10-07-2012, 15:00
Here's where the conspiracy really starts. About a day or two before the debate, it was revealed that the economy added a net total of 169,000 jobs in September. All economists on all news stations said that number was very unlikely to lower the unemployment rate down from 8.1%. Strangely, the day after the debate we are told the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%. Do the math. It doesn't add up, until you factor in one thing. The unemployment rate is calculated by the number of people actively seeking employment as reportable through verifiable sources such as state unemployment offices. Those numbers don't include the people whose unemployment benefits have now expired, nor people like me who have not gone to an unemployment office because they don't need assistance, but are unemployed and actively seeking work.

countrygun
10-07-2012, 15:08
Here's where the conspiracy really starts. About a day or two before the debate, it was revealed that the economy added a net total of 169,000 jobs in September. All economists on all news stations said that number was very unlikely to lower the unemployment rate down from 8.1%. Strangely, the day after the debate we are told the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%. Do the math. It doesn't add up, until you factor in one thing. The unemployment rate is calculated by the number of people actively seeking employment as reportable through verifiable sources such as state unemployment offices. Those numbers don't include the people whose unemployment benefits have now expired, nor people like me who have not gone to an unemployment office because they don't need assistance, but are unemployed and actively seeking work.

The answer is an "Occam's Razor" conclusion. It is too simple and is being overlooked with complicated explanations.

Is there any person who believes that "8.1%" had anything to do with the actual unemployment rate?

That number is arrived at by juggling stats, classification decisions, etc. It is a manipulated number to begin with.

So how hard could it be to make a ".3" manipulation at the moment the boss needs it?

A .3 drop would have had no potential effect on the election months or years ago, but just at the moment it could it happens.

Sure.

janice6
10-07-2012, 15:10
So many people doing anything they can to shore up Obama.

GAFinch
10-07-2012, 17:11
Is the jobs report a conspiracy? Well, the current head of the NLB, Erica Groshen, is yet another person in this administration who's a communist.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/18/obama-labor-agency-nominee-sent-her-kids-to-communist-rooted-summer-camp/

ModGlock17
10-07-2012, 19:35
I do not waste time arguing what bureaucrats say. They, the gov't bureaucrats, do have the advantage of collecting data better than a commercial organization. That I agree. However, their ability to compile and analyze data has much to be desired.

If anyone is so skilled in data analysis, that person can certainly earn much bigger paycheck out in the commercial world analyzing marketing data, making beaucoup dollars. Those who can't and wanna-be, work for the gov't. That's my view.

Back in 2003 or 2004, the census bureau projected that FL would become the 3rd most populous state in the union by 2012. They said that based on the trend of people moving to FL at that time. Never happenned. I laughed at the time because I knew those idiots just connected the data points without rational understand of why the data occurred the way it did. Had they done that, they'd understand the reasons people moved in... and then without those conditions, they moved out... Just idiots interpreting numbers with no understanding of why things happened.

Why waste time arguing what they report ?

michael_b
10-07-2012, 19:37
The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September. What’s your take on this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/multimedia-release-two-global-hawk-192849572.html

Bottom right of page.


Current numbers:

It assures President Obama's re-election (8604)
9%

It's proof the economy is improving (21280)
22%

It's temporary, the worst isn't over (11403)
12%

I don't trust the numbers (55030)
57%



It's BS. Real unemployment is around 25%.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IvanVic
10-07-2012, 19:38
So many people doing anything they can to shore up Obama.

:upeyes:

This is the equivalent of a 9/11 truther claiming that someone who does not believe the government was behind the attacks is supporting Bush.

countrygun
10-07-2012, 19:42
:upeyes:

This is the equivalent of a 9/11 truther claiming that someone who does not believe the government was behind the attacks is supporting Bush.

Yup just like those "Fast and Furious" truthers who simply won't believe what the administration tells them to.

:upeyes:

marchboom
10-08-2012, 08:49
NEVER trust ANY info that comes from the ultra corrupt obama administration.

Just write it off as propaganda.

IvanVic
10-08-2012, 08:54
Yup just like those "Fast and Furious" truthers who simply won't believe what the administration tells them to.

:upeyes:

If you're attempting to draw an analogy between the two, it is clear you do not understand the difference.

Goaltender66
10-08-2012, 09:04
:upeyes:

This is the equivalent of a 9/11 truther claiming that someone who does not believe the government was behind the attacks is supporting Bush.

You're right, I can't believe an Administration illegally telling contractors to ignore the WARN act and offering indemnification would be capable of chicanery. :)

series1811
10-08-2012, 10:50
If you're attempting to draw an analogy between the two, it is clear you do not understand the difference.

Well, don't keep us waiting. We would love to hear an Obama supporter's view of Fast and Furious and why it appears Holder and the rest of the Obama administration are lying their butts off, when really, it is just our imagination.

Go ahead. This ought to be good. :supergrin:

IvanVic
10-08-2012, 11:07
Well, don't keep us waiting. We would love to hear an Obama supporter's view of Fast and Furious and why it appears Holder and the rest of the Obama administration are lying their butts off, when really, it is just our imagination.

Go ahead. This ought to be good. :supergrin:

Fast 'n Furious was an actual government scandal which the Obama administration was responsible for - the unemployment rate has been calculated and reported by the BLS since Moses wore short pants, regardless of the administration. Do you see the difference?

I'm just curious, do you categorize any and everyone with whom you disagree on any given topic (even one that has nothing to do with Obama) as an "Obama supporter?" Do you find it to be a productive form of engagement?

series1811
10-08-2012, 11:14
Fast 'n Furious was an actual government scandal which the Obama administration was responsible for - the unemployment rate has been calculated and reported by the BLS since Moses wore short pants, regardless of the administration. Do you see the difference?

I'm just curious, do you categorize any and everyone with whom you disagree on any given topic (even one that has nothing to do with Obama) as an "Obama supporter?" Do you find it to be a productive form of engagement?

I know they were responsible for it. I'm asking you if you think they have lied about it and are continuing to lie about it.

I worked for the federal government for 21 years and I saw numbers juggled every way possible for lots of reasons. It's endemic with the federal government (and most state and local governments as well). It's every bureacrats stock in trade, used for their chief ambition (survival).

countrygun
10-08-2012, 11:26
If you're attempting to draw an analogy between the two, it is clear you do not understand the difference.

Oh I understand it when I hear a liberal fall back on "you don't understand"

So you are willing to accept the statistics from the Government because?????? Because they've always come from the Government?

So, then , you do agree with me on thing like that actual existence of WMDS in Iraq for instance, and they were just moved before we got to them, after all you aren't one of those folks that doesn't trust what the Government tells you.


You must also believe that Fast and Furioud had no connection to upper levels of Government, just a rogue project by some low level pogues right?

Your trust of Government correlates to it fiting in your agenda.

If you have ever doubted a Government report, then you have no business heckling people who doubt them either.

IvanVic
10-08-2012, 12:03
I know they were responsible for it. I'm asking you if you think they have lied about it and are continuing to lie about it.


Of course, it wouldn't be a scandal if they hadn't lied.


I worked for the federal government for 21 years and I saw numbers juggled every way possible for lots of reasons.

Yet this only seems to come up when people do not like the numbers. Obama is president, unemployment goes down = numbers must be rigged. Obama is president, unemployment goes up = numbers are gospel.

If the numbers were rigged, why didn't they bring the unemployment down below 8% a long time ago when he promised the stimulus would do this?

When you pick and choose whether or not you believe the numbers based on your political party affiliation, you lose all credibility. The numbers are either real or they aren't, and that applies to all administrations. If Romney wins the election, I bet you'll see most of the posters in this thread quoting the falling unemployment rate as an indication of his success (and they'd be right). However, myself and 1 or 2 other people in this thread will be the only ones who can effectively do that without looking like a hypocrite - because our position on the unemployment rate is consistent irrespective of who is in office.

Oh I understand it when I hear a liberal fall back on "you don't understand"


So you define a liberal as someone who does not believe there is a massive conspiracy surrounding the unemployment rate? That's a new one. Apparently your political repertoire only goes as far as "if you disagree with me, you're a liberal!"


So you are willing to accept the statistics from the Government because?????? Because they've always come from the Government?


No, I accept them because your conspiracy theory is filled with holes and contradictions, as are all conspiracy theories. There is no consistency in your argument, unless you're claiming that the unemployment rate has been a conspiracy since its inception - but I've yet to see a single person say that. They only have a problem with it when it suits their agenda. Oddly enough, these will be the first people to laugh and mock liberals 2 years from now when the far left refuses to accept that unemployment went down under Romney. Mark my words.


So, then , you do agree with me on thing like that actual existence of WMDS in Iraq for instance, and they were just moved before we got to them, after all you aren't one of those folks that doesn't trust what the Government tells you.


You must also believe that Fast and Furioud had no connection to upper levels of Government, just a rogue project by some low level pogues right?

Your trust of Government correlates to it fiting in your agenda.

If you have ever doubted a Government report, then you have no business heckling people who doubt them either.

You're attempting to draw equivalencies between singular events that are specific to one administration. The unemployment rate has been calculated by the same department for many, many years across many administrations - this is one of the fundamental reasons that your theory does not make sense.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 12:07
Of course, it wouldn't be a scandal if they hadn't lied.



Yet this only seems to come up when people do not like the numbers. Obama is president, unemployment goes down = numbers must be rigged. Obama is president, unemployment goes up = numbers are gospel.

If the numbers were rigged, why didn't they bring the unemployment down below 8% a long time ago when he promised the stimulus would do this?

When you pick and choose whether or not you believe the numbers based on your political party affiliation, you lose all credibility. The numbers are either real or they aren't, and that applies to all administrations. If Romney wins the election, I bet you'll see most of the posters in this thread quoting the falling unemployment rate as an indication of his success (and they'd be right). However, myself and 1 or 2 other people in this thread will be the only ones who can effectively do that without looking like a hypocrite - because our position on the unemployment rate is consistent irrespective of who is in office.



So you define a liberal as someone who does not believe there is a massive conspiracy surrounding the unemployment rate? That's a new one. Apparently your political repertoire only goes as far as "if you disagree with me, you're a liberal!"



No, I accept them because your conspiracy theory is filled with holes and contradictions, as are all conspiracy theories. There is no consistency in your argument, unless you're claiming that the unemployment rate has been a conspiracy since its inception - but I've yet to see a single person say that. They only have a problem with it when it suits their agenda. Oddly enough, these will be the first people to laugh and mock liberals 2 years from now when the far left refuses to accept that unemployment went down under Romney. Mark my words.



You're attempting to draw equivalencies between singular events that are specific to one administration. The unemployment rate has been calculated by the same department for many, many years across many administrations - this is one of the fundamental reasons that your theory does not make sense.


I am at least willing to admit that many Administrations may have bent the numbers when it suited them and this is just an example.

what is so difficult to grasp about that?

series1811
10-08-2012, 12:46
Well, having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, I have to admit that what I have seen (and, embarrassingly, been forced to participate in a few times), has made me believe that manipulating numbers for political reasons has been much more prevelent under Democrats.

I'll give you a good example of lying, but telling the truth. At the agency I worked at, at the time, Clinton announced that he had authorized the hring of and additional 2000 special agents. And, it was absolutely true. He had. But, the budget he submitted for us, before and after that, did not include one penny for the salaries of these special agents, so none were hired. But, he did authorize them to be hired.

I find it laughable that anyone with any real world experience thinks there is not ten different ways to fudge any government statistic.

wjv
10-08-2012, 12:59
Just wait, those will be adjusted down soon...

ARS

Unexpectedly. . .

countrygun
10-08-2012, 13:01
Well, having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, I have to admit that what I have seen (and, embarrassingly, been forced to participate in a few times), has made me believe that manipulating numbers for political reasons has been much more prevelent under Democrats.

I'll give you a good example of lying, but telling the truth. At the agency I worked at, at the time, Clinton announced that he had authorized the hring of and additional 2000 special agents. And, it was absolutely true. He had. But, the budget he submitted for us, before and after that, did not include one penny for the salaries of these special agents, so none were hired. But, he did authorize them to be hired.

I find it laughable that anyone with any real world experience thinks there is not ten different ways to fudge any government statistic.


The shrt time I was on "the public payroll" i can remember helping submit a budget that included the categories of "Essential services" and "Non-essential services". the boss turned it back to us explaining that it was "crunchtime" ant non-essential services had to be cut. We cut the Non-e and transferred the loss int o now "essential services" and our budget flew through.

In the case of employment stats for instance, there are categories, basically for "voluntary part-time" (those who only want to work part time) and involuntary part time (those who want to work more and are therefore "underemployed"). All you have to do is a bit of juggling and the "Underemployed" are no happy part-timers, and as "fully employed" as they want to be.

Just drop the word to the people asking the questions to phrase them the right way.

It also helps when the Government picks up more employees too.

English
10-09-2012, 07:16
Nothing more than a monumental all out failed attempt at an October surprise.

Pink unicorns and marshmallow trees perpetrated by Barry's disciples.

Ooooo The buzzin of the bees in the cigarette trees
The soda water fountains
And the lemonade springs
Where the blubird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

The bulldogs all have rubber teeth
The streams flow milk and honey
A man can sleep the day away
and there ain't no need for money

IvanVic
10-09-2012, 08:34
I am at least willing to admit that many Administrations may have bent the numbers when it suited them and this is just an example.


If that's your position, then that is perfectly reasonable (although I don't agree with it).

However, when it plays out in the mind of a republican, this thinking usually turns into those "many" administrations you mentioned as being all of the liberal ones, and the opposite would be true for a democrat who abides by this mentality. So this person who is sometimes skeptical of the numbers can just turn out to be a partisan that trusts or distrusts the numbers whenever it makes their party look good. I find that to be the case most of the time, but there are always exceptions.

countrygun
10-09-2012, 11:12
If that's your position, then that is perfectly reasonable (although I don't agree with it).

However, when it plays out in the mind of a republican, this thinking usually turns into those "many" administrations you mentioned as being all of the liberal ones, and the opposite would be true for a democrat who abides by this mentality. So this person who is sometimes skeptical of the numbers can just turn out to be a partisan that trusts or distrusts the numbers whenever it makes their party look good. I find that to be the case most of the time, but there are always exceptions.

Since the day, as a teenager, I realized how the stats we gathered and measured I have never placed any faith in their accuracy no matter which party was in power. they may reflect a trend and be a small corner of the whole picture, But, IMO less than a 1.5% change is "withing the margin of manipulation", even of the incomplete picture they represent.

QNman
10-09-2012, 15:12
I was trying to figure out how someone with an IQ above room temp. could rationalize how the addition of 114,000 jobs could drop the rate .3 %.

I did graduate from UGA where math was secondary, but c'mon my grandchildren could figure this out.

Doing the math in reverse, doesn't this equate to a grand total of 38,000,000 "employable" peeps in the workforce? If so, how can the numbers be right?

QNman
10-09-2012, 15:13
Double-tap

QNman
10-09-2012, 15:23
Stupid iPhone.