More Obama Lies. Jobless Claims Down Sharply. Ha!

[Neubarth]

Jobless claims fall sharply in latest week

Reuters - 57 minutes ago.
A case worker discusses eligibility for unemployed people at a jobs center in San Francisco, California February 4, 2010. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of US workers filing new applications for jobless benefits tumbled last week, a government ...

The pattern of lies is always the same. Outrageous and Bold, as if that will convince the people that the numbers are not skyrocketing. Lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

 

[pinqy]

hmmm not too long ago you said you trusted the Not seasonally adjusted numbers because they're directly from the states. 3 weeks in a row they've gone down, yet you still claim "skyrocketing." Interesting.

 

[KissMy]

Jobless claims may fall for a period due to the government hiring about 1.2 million temporary Census workers. The workforce will decline once again in the last half of the year. The only lasting improvement in the un-employment situation will come when the majority of the baby boomers retire.

 

[Neubarth]

hmmm not too long ago you said you trusted the Not seasonally adjusted numbers because they're directly from the states. 3 weeks in a row they've gone down, yet you still claim "skyrocketing." Interesting.

Listen, you satanic lying sack of shit. You have tried that lie about five times now, and each time I tell you that it is the numbers as a whole that are the issue.


Three million people a month who are eligible for Unemployment Insurance are filing for same. Another one to one and a half million every month also lose their jobs but can not file for UI because they are ineligible. You make light of that and laugh at them and for that you will be condemned to hell along with Obama and his stooges.

The damned satanically corrupt Obama administration lies like hell to make people think that the numbers are way below Two Million and falling. All he does is lie all of the time, just like you do. I would laugh if the Radical Islamics slowly cut your head off with a dull knife as a sacrIfice to Allah-Satan, because you would have received what you are due.

There are no words that could describe how totally evil you are in all of your deceipt.

 

[Neubarth]

 

[KissMy]

Source: The U.S. Department of Labor
The unadjusted number of initial jobless claims under state programs was 504,661 for the week ending February 6th, 2010.
The reported seasonally adjusted number of initial jobless claims under state programs was 440,000 for the week ending February 6, 2010.
The unadjusted number of insured persons claiming unemployment benefits in state programs was 5,659,505 for the week ending January 30th, 2010.
The reported seasonally adjusted number of insured persons claiming unemployment benefits in state programs was 4,538,000 for the week ending January 30th, 2010.

Almost a million unemployed are left out of the published unemployment numbers & percentages. Sad.

Source: The U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics
The size of the US workforce when Bush took office was 109,680,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Bush first year in office after 9/11 was 109,783,000.
The size of the US workforce when Obama took office after subprime meltdown was 109,084,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Obama first year in office after stimulus was 107,601,000.

 

[Neubarth]

Almost a million unemployed are left out of the published unemployment numbers & percentages. Sad.

Source: The U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics
The size of the US workforce when Bush took office was 109,680,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Bush first year in office after 9/11 was 109,783,000.
The size of the US workforce when Obama took office after subprime meltdown was 109,084,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Obama first year in office after stimulus was 107,601,000.

I keep on telling people that the Government Numbers are total bullshit and so outrageous as to make me laugh. When Bush II took office the workforce was underestimated at 109,680,000. In the years that followed the population went up by almost twenty million. The labor force should have gone up by ten million. Instead, it has gone Down by by two million. That is twelve million people they are no longer counting in the labor pool when they were not counting enough of them in the first place back in 2002.

And to think the Sheeple accept this as if it is believable. As Jesus used to say, "Blind Fools, Hypocrites!"

 

[Big Black Dog]

If you lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe you. Just ask Hitler.

 

[pinqy]

Almost a million unemployed are left out of the published unemployment numbers & percentages. Sad.

Source: The U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics
The size of the US workforce when Bush took office was 109,680,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Bush first year in office after 9/11 was 109,783,000.
The size of the US workforce when Obama took office after subprime meltdown was 109,084,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Obama first year in office after stimulus was 107,601,000.

I keep on telling people that the Government Numbers are total bullshit and so outrageous as to make me laugh. When Bush II took office the workforce was underestimated at 109,680,000. In the years that followed the population went up by almost twenty million. The labor force should have gone up by ten million. Instead, it has gone Down by by two million. That is twelve million people they are no longer counting in the labor pool when they were not counting enough of them in the first place back in 2002.

Try again. I'll assume you're not being deliberately dishonest, but when Kissmy cited "the workforce" the number actually referenced was total Private nonfarm payroll jobs. But then you switch and start talking about the labor force and the labor pool and it certainly sounds like you're trying to equate that with the 109,680,000 which is ridiculous. Perhaps you'd like to clarify the numbers and what they mean?

 

[KissMy]

I keep on telling people that the Government Numbers are total bullshit and so outrageous as to make me laugh. When Bush II took office the workforce was underestimated at 109,680,000. In the years that followed the population went up by almost twenty million. The labor force should have gone up by ten million. Instead, it has gone Down by by two million. That is twelve million people they are no longer counting in the labor pool when they were not counting enough of them in the first place back in 2002.

And to think the Sheeple accept this as if it is believable. As Jesus used to say, "Blind Fools, Hypocrites!"

I believe this chart shows what you are refering to.

 

[KissMy]

Almost a million unemployed are left out of the published unemployment numbers & percentages. Sad.

Source: The U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics
The size of the US workforce when Bush took office was 109,680,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Bush first year in office after 9/11 was 109,783,000.
The size of the US workforce when Obama took office after subprime meltdown was 109,084,000.
The size of the US workforce at the end of Obama first year in office after stimulus was 107,601,000.

I keep on telling people that the Government Numbers are total bullshit and so outrageous as to make me laugh. When Bush II took office the workforce was underestimated at 109,680,000. In the years that followed the population went up by almost twenty million. The labor force should have gone up by ten million. Instead, it has gone Down by by two million. That is twelve million people they are no longer counting in the labor pool when they were not counting enough of them in the first place back in 2002.

Try again. I'll assume you're not being deliberately dishonest, but when Kissmy cited "the workforce" the number actually referenced was total Private nonfarm payroll jobs. But then you switch and start talking about the labor force and the labor pool and it certainly sounds like you're trying to equate that with the 109,680,000 which is ridiculous. Perhaps you'd like to clarify the numbers and what they mean?

It does not matter which set of numbers you use as long as their unadjusted. I was simply helping Neubarth show his premis in real factual numbers. The sad reality is that over many years now the work force has been shrinking while the population is increasing. Yet headlines keep screaming unemployment rate dropping. This chart illustrates the lie perfectly.

 

[Neubarth]

Indeed! The government numbers are a joke. We are living in a Big Brother era where the government can lie at will and almost everybody believes the tripe; even though, if they looked seriously at what the government is saying, they'd laugh (or cry). Our government presently has no concept of honesty or integrity.

It would all be so easy if we could all become like Pinko and learn to love Big Brother.For years I have resisted it. I can not betray myself.

 

[Neubarth]

If you look at the right side of that chart, you see the deathly pale Head and Shoulders formation. It is like the warning implicit on the old bottles of Iodine. Warning! Poisonous!

Chartologists could have a hell of a time with that formation. All I know is that it can harbor tremendous ill for the US and the world.

 

[KissMy]

Indeed! The government numbers are a joke. We are living in a Big Brother era where the government can lie at will and almost everybody believes the tripe; even though, if they looked seriously at what the government is saying, they'd laugh (or cry). Our government presently has no concept of honesty or integrity.

It would all be so easy if we could all become like Pinko and learn to love Big Brother.For years I have resisted it. I can not betray myself.

If you go to THE REAL TIME DEBT CLOCK IT IS CURRENTLY SHOWING WORKFORCE GROWING AT A FASTER RATE THAN POPULATION. Only time will tell if those numbers are accurate.

 

[pinqy]

It does not matter which set of numbers you use as long as their unadjusted. I was simply helping Neubarth show his premis in real factual numbers. The sad reality is that over many years now the work force has been shrinking while the population is increasing. Yet headlines keep screaming unemployment rate dropping. This chart illustrates the lie perfectly.

But it does matter what numbers you use because different surveys measure different things and give a different view. "Employment" refers to the Current Employment statistics. It's a measure of non-farm payroll jobs...jobs, not people, so one person holding multiple jobs gets counted for each of those jobs...so it's not a measure of the labor force, and it's inaccurate to call it the workforce.

"Unemployment" comes from the Current Population Survey. It measures employed and unemployed people and those two together make the Labor Force. The employment numbers here are not the official ones (because of the large margin of error) but counts everyone who worked in the reference week. Unemployed are people who didn't work but looked for work in the previous month.

So the Labor Force is people who worked or are trying to work. And the unemployment rate is a measure of how easy or difficult it is to find work if you're looking. You don't want to include retirees, or full time students without jobs, or stay-at-home spouses or anyone else not trying to work, because that would give a false idea of how the actual labor market is going.

Now in a recession it is important to take a look at people that aren't looking but could possibly work. The difficulty is that some of those people, and usually the first to drop out. are students who don't need a job, or spouses earning a secondary income, or other people who don't really need or don't strongly want a job, or people who don't have a good impression of the job market or lack good search or interview skills. So counting them doesn't tell us how hard it really is to get a job, because they're not actually trying. That's not a moral judgement on anyone, just a realistic way of objectively measuring, so it can't go into the official measurement, but those who aren't working but want to and theoretically would are measured and looked at.

The Labor Force is down, and all labor economists look at that. I think that's the main thing, is that people who aren't educated in economics or statistics don't understand what the numbers are supposed to measure and think they're something they're not. Too many people don't get that employment and unemployment can both go up or both go down as people enter or leave the labor force for any number of reasons and not all of that is due to the economy.

 

[KissMy]

It does not matter which set of numbers you use as long as their unadjusted. I was simply helping Neubarth show his premis in real factual numbers. The sad reality is that over many years now the work force has been shrinking while the population is increasing. Yet headlines keep screaming unemployment rate dropping. This chart illustrates the lie perfectly.

But it does matter what numbers you use because different surveys measure different things and give a different view. "Employment" refers to the Current Employment statistics. It's a measure of non-farm payroll jobs...jobs, not people, so one person holding multiple jobs gets counted for each of those jobs...so it's not a measure of the labor force, and it's inaccurate to call it the workforce.

"Unemployment" comes from the Current Population Survey. It measures employed and unemployed people and those two together make the Labor Force. The employment numbers here are not the official ones (because of the large margin of error) but counts everyone who worked in the reference week. Unemployed are people who didn't work but looked for work in the previous month.

So the Labor Force is people who worked or are trying to work. And the unemployment rate is a measure of how easy or difficult it is to find work if you're looking. You don't want to include retirees, or full time students without jobs, or stay-at-home spouses or anyone else not trying to work, because that would give a false idea of how the actual labor market is going.

Now in a recession it is important to take a look at people that aren't looking but could possibly work. The difficulty is that some of those people, and usually the first to drop out. are students who don't need a job, or spouses earning a secondary income, or other people who don't really need or don't strongly want a job, or people who don't have a good impression of the job market or lack good search or interview skills. So counting them doesn't tell us how hard it really is to get a job, because they're not actually trying. That's not a moral judgement on anyone, just a realistic way of objectively measuring, so it can't go into the official measurement, but those who aren't working but want to and theoretically would are measured and looked at.

The Labor Force is down, and all labor economists look at that. I think that's the main thing, is that people who aren't educated in economics or statistics don't understand what the numbers are supposed to measure and think they're something they're not. Too many people don't get that employment and unemployment can both go up or both go down as people enter or leave the labor force for any number of reasons and not all of that is due to the economy.

The problem is that only the adjusted (manipulated) good number gets hyped by the administration & the press. You really have to dig to find unadjusted numbers charts & graphs. It is not a lack of understanding. It is manipulation. A person should be able to hold down a job & get the real news in their 30 minute news cast instead of having to research things all the time to see if they have been mislead. Unadjusted workforce size, unemployment, & employment to population ratio numbers should all carry equal publicity & importance. People are hurting in the real world (civilian workers) living outside of the government fairy tail.

 

[Vanquish]

I love how that graph shows that the length of the time between recessions has gotten longer since the "good old days" in direct contradiction to one of the other threads in this sub-forum where someone says OBAMA = worse and quicker recession!

ha ha ha