Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Unemployment rate poll

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by pipedreams, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    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
  2. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    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

  3. JFrame


    May 29, 2001
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    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.

    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.

    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  4. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    Feb 18, 2009
    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.
  5. domin8ss


    Feb 20, 2012
    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.
  6. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
    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.

  7. janice6

    janice6 Silver Member

    Apr 4, 2006
    So many people doing anything they can to shore up Obama.
  8. GAFinch


    Feb 23, 2009
  9. ModGlock17


    Dec 18, 2010
    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 ?
  10. michael_b

    michael_b BRC #1492

    Sep 3, 2011
    It's BS. Real unemployment is around 25%.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  11. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012

    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.
  12. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
    Yup just like those "Fast and Furious" truthers who simply won't believe what the administration tells them to.

  13. marchboom


    Aug 18, 2006
    NEVER trust ANY info that comes from the ultra corrupt obama administration.

    Just write it off as propaganda.
  14. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    If you're attempting to draw an analogy between the two, it is clear you do not understand the difference.
  15. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    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. :)
  16. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    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:
  17. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    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?
  18. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    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).
  19. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
    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.
  20. IvanVic


    Apr 19, 2012
    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.