Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.
Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.
Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.
The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.
I don't follow you. What would that establish?
I don't have to justify any argument, because I'm not even making an argument. Conspiracy theorists are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim is that the most recent unemployment report, that just happens to coincide with a recent Presidential debate (big conspiracy theory red flag), was politically manipulated by the current administration to show a false unemployment record.
That is an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that the BLS report is accurate, but I AM saying that it is no more or less accurate than any previous BLS report on unemployment. TheGreatGatsby used a premise that the BLS is known for working last minute, or having shoddy methodologies, or something along those lines (I think I'm at least in the ballpark), and if that's the case, then those methodologies have always been in place and doesn't that prove me case even more? It is a ridiculous claim, and like all ridiculous claims, it should be ridiculed. The only two premises are that the report happened two days after a debate, and that a couple of BLS employees made small campaign contributions and that it constitutes a conflict of interest. You'd have better luck supporting an elephant with 10-pound test fishing line than you would supporting this claim with those premises.
Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.
There's an old saying
You do not allow the fox to guard the hen house.
You do not allow bank robbers to be bank guards
You do not allow drunk drivers to drive on race day.
And you do not all inmates at a maximum security prison to guard themselves.
Someone who donates to obama and has access to the data for the unemployment numbers, and those numbers do not MATCH REALITY COOKED.
WOW SOMEONE ENJOY'S ADMITTING TO BEING STUPID.Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.