Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
WALL STREET INSIDER On Latest Obama Jobs Report: ” Absolute Rubbish”
#1
This is but one of a growing number of articles exposing the unemployment lies coming out of the Obama administration.

The Ulsterman Report

by Ulsterman on October 5, 2012

EXCERPT:

A longtime Wall Street power player makes clear the attempted October surprise jobs report by the Obama/Jarrett administration is a “fabrication built upon a fabrication” that proves just how desperate those who hope to keep Obama in power have now become.

LINK
Reply
#2
Here is something for the Grizz to contemplate, as he goes forth touting the new jobs report, trumpeting it as legit. And this from MSLSD no less. S18S6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...TeI2x2H0#!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#3




___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#4
Hilda Solis is simply outraged!! OUTRAGED!!
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#5
Yes, how Dare us believe the Bamster & Crew would have the audacity to fudge/manipulate the numbers.

So,....who are you going to believe: Us or your Lying Eyes?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#6
Solis said the numbers came from professionals. If so, some of them should wise up and wave a penalty flag before they lose all credibility. This is the same predicament pollsters are in. They fudge the numbers to make money - but still need the trust of their clients in the long run. They both try to influence opinion, and rationalize that they do so in a good cause. The "professional economists" may think their fudging the numbers will act as a trigger to accomplish an improvement - and if so, they think - who is hurt?
Reply
#7
Here's the report ..
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

If you look at the same time last year, the unemployment rate was higher at 9% but the labor "participation rate" was actually a point or so higher ... ??

Quote:... The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm
payroll employment rose by 114,000
Quote:... Total employment rose by 873,000 in September ...

Dang!!! That's a LOT of farmers eh?!
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#8
(10-06-2012, 09:11 AM)sunsettommy Wrote: This is but one of a growing number of articles exposing the unemployment lies coming out of the Obama administration.

The Ulsterman Report

by Ulsterman on October 5, 2012

EXCERPT:

A longtime Wall Street power player makes clear the attempted October surprise jobs report by the Obama/Jarrett administration is a “fabrication built upon a fabrication” that proves just how desperate those who hope to keep Obama in power have now become.

LINK

Yeah I love this Ulsterman report Tommy. As soon as I went to the page I saw this pop up of a Romney-Ryan ad (just hover to see the video.), so I refreshed the page because I was curious to see if I could see it again--guess what? I did several times and on the bottom it shows itself.

Wow! I wonder if I need a clue card to figure out who Mr. Ulsterman is wanting for President? (Talking about cooking something.) S17 By the way, I love it when you go to Ulsterman's About Page and see the following: "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence." -G. Washington OK. That's it?! Nothing else about Ulsterman's site?! Why it was formed? Who sponsors it?

Now I am going to let Labor Secretary Hilda Solis tell you and Ulsterman how this data has been collected (since she has been there for 15 years, with some of her colleagues being there longer.) and has not been scrutinized until now, OK?

Quote:BLS Explains Why 'Cooked' Jobs Report Charge is 'Preposterous'
CNBC, INVESTOPEDIA, JOBS, JOBS REPORT, OBAMA, BLS, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, JACK WELCH, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
AOL
| 05 Oct 2012 | 03:13 PM ET

It's 32 days before Election Day, and an embattled president receives news that could only bring him joy. For the first time since Barack Obama's first month in office, the national unemployment rate has dropped below 8 percent, to a September tally of 7.8 percent. "Well, isn't that convenient?" howled many in the blogosphere, with a charge that the jobs report had been "cooked."

The chorus of jobs-report skeptics was led by no less an American luminary than Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric , who tweeted, "these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

Given the rush to question the legitimacy of the jobs report, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis felt it necessary to respond to the critics, and appeared on CNBC to say, "I'm insulted when I hear that, because we have a very professional civil service ... have the highest regard for our professionals that do the calculations at the [Bureau of Labor Statistics]. They are trained economists."

AOL Jobs spoke today to one of those economists at the BLS, John Mullins, about the process behind putting together the reports.

Q. How are jobs reports compiled?

A. The data is drawn is from the current population survey and the current employment statistical survey. The first is a survey of households. The second, which I work on, is of business establishments, agencies. And data from both appears in the employment situation report each month, which is where we see the unemployment rate.

Q. What do you ask them?

A. For the current employment survey, we get information on payroll, employment size, hours on the job and total earnings. So it's a sample of stats from businesses that pay unemployment insurance. We ask a subset of that universe to participate.

Q. How is the data delivered?

A. The businesses submit the data in a variety of methods, either electronically or over the phone.

Q. So there is human involvement?

A. Yes. And then the data is assessed by a computer program that identifies peculiarities, which we review for accuracy.

Q. Is there any chance for the data to be doctored?

A. No. And we are not political appointees. In my program, there are 15 economists. I have been here for 15 years, some of my colleagues have been here for longer. We don't really talk politics at work, at least not any more than in any other workplace. I would say I wouldn't even really know which way my colleagues lean politically.

Q. Are there any measures taken to make sure the numbers aren't doctored?

A. The data are reviewed by supervisory staff to make sure the analysis is based on sound statistical data. Any one person doesn't have influence great enough to change the numbers significantly. And over the course of the year, it's cross-checked with state unemployment data, which would reveal any inaccuracies. Our methodology is known to prominent statistical organizations and it is transparent and consistent with standard statistical practices.

The process is open and transparent, and all the information is on our website. Anyone who understands the process and statistics knows how preposterous the charge of doctoring is. And I will add that we're all professionals, and we take pride in this not being political.
Copyright 2012 AOL

URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49305192/
.
© 2012 CNBC.com

And if you're still raw about the truth on how Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and her colleagues--professional economists--do their jobs you can still help out the Donald and his never-ending quest for that real birth certificate. S17S13
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#9
Congratulations Grizz, you have managed to compile a long, and drawn out answer, which amounts to little of an answer. I can tell you are a huge fan of the Allman Brothers Band, and "Ramblin' Man" is your favorite. S13

As for those little persistent boxes that keep popping up, funny thing is that it works with CNBC too. Surprise, Surprise! S6

Oh, and that outraged set of comments about why the BLS is not biased, dishonest,......or whatever. That was a great 'fun piece'. Thanks for including it, because it makes for a great piece of fiction.

I particularly liked this one:

Quote:Q. Is there any chance for the data to be doctored?

A. No. And we are not political appointees. In my program, there are 15 economists. I have been here for 15 years, some of my colleagues have been here for longer. We don't really talk politics at work, at least not any more than in any other workplace. I would say I wouldn't even really know which way my colleagues lean politically.

Since the government system of Bureaucrats is loaded with Bureaucrats, political appointees are not usually necessary. After all, just as Jackasses tend to be Jackasses, bureaucrats tend to be bureaucrats. LOL!

But not one time did I notice anyone, including yourself, explain one little aspect of this elegant math makes sense. How can a decrease in the number those finding jobs(lower than the 'break-even' numbers necessary to keep above water) from the month before, amount to a lowering of the percentage numbers. How can this add up Grizz?

So I will ask this again: if 'X' number is necessary to be the break even point, and the total number of job additions is lower than 'X', then how in G-d's Green Earth can anyone state that the percentages of people being out of a job actually be lower? Unless of course, someone is playing 'Foot Loose and Fancy Free' with the statistics?

Please answer that one, ok? I really want to know how all those honest, open, forthright, and non-partisan bureaucrats, in Washington managed to pull this one off? I really want you to tell me how its accomplished? Pretty Please?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#10
Strikes me that the "household" data is essentially a "polling" number ... indeed, we've seen time and time again how it's virtually impossible to skew the results of a "public poll". In general, the "household" number requires a good deal of "housekeeping" after the fact (read after Nov 6) with the 'actual' data collected from businesses and applications for unemployment.

If you believe the report above, white men in non-manufacturing jobs appear to have done pretty well last month ... everybody else? ... not so much. If the Obama camp is trying to rally the electorate via better employment numbers, it looks like, (if they've actually helped anyone), they're going after the wrong demographic.

I'm sitting here listening to Robert Gibbs essentially call Jack Welch a "birther conspirator" for questioning how the number of employed could have spiked to the highest rate in the last thirty years one month before an election ... I try to filter out unsubstantiated conspiracies ... but when a guy like Gibbs starts dismissing something as 'ridiculous' .... my gut reaction is that it's gotta be worth a second look.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#11
You're just too nice a guy Yakster. S10S22
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#12
mr_yak Wrote:Strikes me that the "household" data is essentially a "polling" number ...
Yep! That's most definitely what Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told you; that's what I would call it. S6

mr_yak Wrote:If you believe the report above, white men in non-manufacturing jobs appear to have done pretty well last month ... everybody else? ... not so much. If the Obama camp is trying to rally the electorate via better employment numbers, it looks like, (if they've actually helped anyone), they're going after the wrong demographic.
Really? I didn't know that you worked at the Burea of Labor S17

mr_yak Wrote:I'm sitting here listening to Robert Gibbs essentially call Jack Welch a "birther conspirator" for questioning how the number of employed could have spiked to the highest rate in the last thirty years one month before an election ... I try to filter out unsubstantiated conspiracies ... but when a guy like Gibbs starts dismissing something as 'ridiculous' .... my gut reaction is that it's gotta be worth a second look.
That's nothing, you should have heard his discussion with Chris Matthews, when Chris asked him if he had proof about his tweet.



"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#13
(10-07-2012, 01:14 PM)Grizzly Wrote:
mr_yak Wrote:If you believe the report above, white men in non-manufacturing jobs appear to have done pretty well last month ... everybody else? ... not so much. If the Obama camp is trying to rally the electorate via better employment numbers, it looks like, (if they've actually helped anyone), they're going after the wrong demographic.
Really? I didn't know that you worked at the Burea of Labor S17

Wha?? Just because I'm capable of reading text in a report?? Man, the Obama Administration really is setting the bar low these days!
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#14
JohnL Wrote:How can a decrease in the number those finding jobs(lower than the 'break-even' numbers necessary to keep above water) from the month before, amount to a lowering of the percentage numbers. How can this add up Grizz?
First of all, John, surveys are still surveys; you can take them or leave them. Two forms are bound to conflate sooner or later and confuse. But it's funny to me that this is the first memorable time the right wants to use this sort of horse-hockey to gain political points on their man that's down in swing states on percentage points within weeks before an election.

However I hope this helps: September jobs report: What you might have missed

Quote:Earlier today, I wrote up the September jobs report, Dylan Matthews provided the charts, and Ezra Klein explained why the drop in the unemployment rate down to 7.8 percent certainly wasn’t the work of a government conspiracy. Now here are a few other tidbits in the report that you might have missed:

1) Obama’s track record on jobs. Over at the Wall Street Journal, Sudeep Reddy explains that since President Obama took office in January 2009, private non-farm payrolls have risen by 514,000 and government payrolls have dropped by 575,000.

Now, if you add in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ preliminary benchmark revisions (which offer an even more accurate look at jobs figures), then the private sector has created 967,000 jobs since Obama took office, while governments at all levels have shed 642,000 jobs.

2) Why last month’s drop in unemployment is unlikely to be a total fluke. The unemployment rate is calculated from a monthly survey of 60,000 households. As such, it’s likely to be a bit volatile. This month, the household survey showed that 873,000 more Americans were employed in September than in July, with unemployment dropping 0.3 points to 7.8 percent. That could be wrong. But labor economist Betsey Stevenson argues on Twitter that the drop in unemployment is statistically significant. “A fall of 0.3 may be bigger or smaller than 0.3,” she notes, “but it is a clear fall.”

So, although the unemployment rate could tick back up a bit next month, as the household survey data bounces around, the improvement in the labor market in September is very likely to be real.

3) There’s some evidence that business creation is picking up in the United States. Here’s one theory for why the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s household survey (which showed a big drop in the unemployment rate) looks stronger than the agency’s payroll survey (which showed that the economy only added 114,000 jobs in September). It could be that the payroll survey, which tends to survey established companies and government, is missing an uptick in new business creation.

As Justin Lahart and economist Justin Wolfers point out, if business creation were picking up, then you’d expect to see a stronger household survey and a big upward revision when the BLS goes through its payroll data more carefully each year. And that’s exactly what happened—by poring through state-level tax data, BLS found an extra 386,000 jobs in March of 2012 than it had originally estimated. And the household data is way up. Still, this is just a theory.

4) Manufacturing is weakening, while other sectors are up. Here’s Greg Ip: “[T]he gains were concentrated in health care, transportation and warehousing, and finance. Manufacturing employment dropped, which corroborates weakness in factory activity that may reflect the slowing global economy and worries about a recession if politicians don’t move the year-end ‘fiscal cliff.’”

5) Political scientists say this unemployment report probably won’t influence the presidential election. Here’s a line from Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, who reviewed 60 years of economic and elections data: “[O]ne can predict the actual vote from the current income growth about as well in April as in November. By April, the economic cake is largely baked.” John Sides concurs that “late changes in the economy aren’t that consequential,” although he adds that a strong jobs report might blunt some of Mitt Romney’s recent momentum in the polls.
If not get busy with Donald Trump and that birther thing. S17
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#15
Grizz, I'm sorry, but you are just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping some of it will stick.

But allow me to show you why it won't. Just the first point is enough to show that all this trumpeting is nothing but pure Bullshit. Here's what I mean:

Quote:1) Obama’s track record on jobs. Over at the Wall Street Journal, Sudeep Reddy explains that since President Obama took office in January 2009, private non-farm payrolls have risen by 514,000 and government payrolls have dropped by 575,000.

Now, if you add in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ preliminary benchmark revisions (which offer an even more accurate look at jobs figures), then the private sector has created 967,000 jobs since Obama took office, while governments at all levels have shed 642,000 jobs.

Earth to Grizz, for the economy to be buzzing along, and out of the doldrums that number should be in the Several Millions. This country is continuing to grow population wise, and it requires millions of jobs over a four year period, just to keep up with the increase. What part of that don't you understand? An economy is not a "Zero Sum Game" situation.

You are living in a Fantasy Land Grizz, if you think your Boy is doing even a moderately good job. He's not, I'm sorry to say.

Are you smoking Crack? Or perhaps Pot? Or something else? You would have to be doing something like that if you actually believe any of this mumbo jumbo Superstition version of creative economics.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#16
You're going to have to go back to the birther thing than. Two terms of George W Bush? What do you expect--instant miracles?Shock
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#17
Are you addressing me, or the Yakster?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#18
(10-07-2012, 04:53 PM)John L Wrote: Are you addressing me, or the Yakster?
To you. It was a quick reply.S5
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#19
(10-07-2012, 05:00 PM)Grizzly Wrote:
(10-07-2012, 04:53 PM)John L Wrote: Are you addressing me, or the Yakster?
To you. It was a quick reply.S5

Ok, I am going to say this just one more time. And if you don't 'get it' I have to assume you are not playing with a full deck. Ok?

I am not a Republican. I am not a fan of the GOP. I call them Dumbasses, because they(the leadership) couldn't find their ass with both hands, even if someone gave them written instructions.

READ MY SIGNATURE!

I am not a fan of George W. Bush. Haven't cared for him for years now. I have stated this so many time, here at ai-Jane, that I am blue in the face. For you to even equate me as a Bushie is a direct reflection on your ability to think logically, not me.

Also, for you to use 'Junior' as an example of what not to be, is bordering on intellectual ineptness, especially coming from a Jackass. That's you and other card carrying rabid Democrats. I have no love or respect for either party, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody possessing a brain, that they partially fire up upon occasion.

And the point is that you Jackasses would be fawning all over Bush if he had a "D", instead of a "R" following his name. He's a Big Government guy, and you guys just have orgasms over Big Government. The only big difference between him and Bubba, is that Bubba is almost totally deficient in morals, and Bush is a religiously moral person.

So why do you hate him? I've concluded it is because of the "R" attached to the name. Other than that, you would be salivating all over him. And don't even bother denying it.

So, for you to address me, and ask me about why I love Bush, or words to that effect, shows that it is you, not I, who are not living in reality.

Again, let me state this for you to attempt to mentally grasp. I am a genuine, died-in-the-wool, 19th century Jeffersonian, Alexis de Tocqueville, Frederich von Hayek, Liberal. The Real Deal. That places me in the Libertarian camp, and I almost always vote Libertarisn: not Republican, or Democrat. I can't stand either of those parties. So please show me a little respect here, and try to remember this from now on.

If you want to find someone to defend Bush, or the GOP establishment, you will have to go to the source. The Yakster is a registered Republican. Bill Lambert, and his brother, are so Republican they are unable to bend over and pick something up. Go see them if you want to debate a Republican.

I am not party oriented. I am Ideology oriented, and I Love Individual Liberty. That is why I am a proud Liberal, in the true sense, not that bastardized one that both sides of the isle constantly keep shooting their mouths off about.

Now, is this understood? Because if not, you are totally beyond reasoning with. And we will just have to smile at each other, and speak to others. I enjoy your participation here Grizz, but please appreciate my political thinking for what it really is.

I am an Individualist, and I love Individual Liberty more than I love my life. I despise big Government and want it as our Founding Fathers envisioned. This is not hard to understand,........I think.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#20
Also, I am not a 'birther'. And Bush made countless mistakes,...except for the tax cuts, which did help stimulate the economy. That is why your Bamster lobbied for their continuation in 2010, and got them extended.

And as for instant miracles, three and a half years is a whole lot longer than your 'so called' Instant Miracles. The Bamster has attempted to force Collectivism down our throats, Collectivism doesn't work. In fact I challenge you to show a country that is Collectivist and has been successful throughout the years. Any of them that have managed to hold themselves together have had to go back to the drawing board, Sweden being the most obvious. Their socialized system has been peeled away steadily over the last several years. And same thing with Canada.

Collectivism does not work! And that is why the Bamster is such a Buggerin' Failure.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama's jobs Plan/speech:How it compares with facts John L 60 21,428 09-24-2011, 05:06 PM
Last Post: jt
  Obama Boosts Productivity, Creates Jobs, Helps Retailers Fredledingue 12 2,828 01-12-2010, 12:08 AM
Last Post: WmLambert
  AIG Nationalized - Wall Street crisis continues... mcabromb 76 13,609 03-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  Wall Street fears for next Great Depression scpg02 15 2,792 05-14-2008, 06:40 PM
Last Post: jt
  Jobs created vs jobs lost KenRI 16 7,823 01-14-2007, 11:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)