Now we know. It's the Tea Party's fault!!!

[The T]

1) You guys are wrong again. Even if you count the two Independents as Democrats, which right there means the Democrats never had a super majority, then there were only 60 votes for a few months.

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is recent history. How can you all be so wrong about it?

2) Prior to Scott Brown being seated there were 57 Democrats and 2 Independents. They could not form 60 votes without GOP help. What are you talking about delaying seating him for the Obamacare vote?

3) Look at the chart that I previously posted. Look at the numbers from the BLS. Job growth was increasing steadily up until a couple months after the TPers came in to office, and then it dropped. Why did it drop shortly after the TPers took office?

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

The books are cooked. How many are OUT of the labour force an no longer counted?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

Anybody with a computer can make a graph and claim that it comes from anywhere. So the source of any particular graph posted is pertinent for those who are interested in the truth rather than just interested in having others think they are right.

What did you think of my previous post re the problem with assessing unemployment figures that would also apply to job creation numbers? And do you dispute that the 'official' unemployment has held steady and or decreased AFTER the GOP regained power in the House? If so, will you give them the credit for bringing down unemployment?

If you don't see it that way, please break down for me the private sector jobs including in your chart and what government intiatives created those. And then compare the private sector jobs created with the government jobs created.

Once you have completed that assignment, then perhaps you might have a credible argument that the Tea Party has prevented job creation or that the Obama Administration has done anything to create anything other than government jobs.

I do refute your claim about unemployment, since your claim is wrong.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Unemployment peaked and was coming down well before the TPers got into office. As for why, it's obvious. The Recovery Act was firmly in place by that point. States were getting needed money and so was the private sector. If you think the TPers had something to do with this, 3 months prior to taking office, then the onous is on you to prove it.

As for my chart, here's the link from Obama's site:

23 Months of Job Growth — Blog — Barack Obama

Now you'll attack it and me and probably throw in an insult or two, but that won't change the fact the numbers are from the BLS and are correct.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

The books are cooked. How many are OUT of the labour force an no longer counted?

Why should we count retirees?

 

[The T]

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

The books are cooked. How many are OUT of the labour force an no longer counted?

Why should we count retirees?

People who quit looking son. Use yer brain.

 

[naturegirl]

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

The books are cooked. How many are OUT of the labour force an no longer counted?

Why should we count retirees?

Because they were forced to retire?? Maybe they could have worked a few more years, perhaps they weren't ready to retire.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

Anybody with a computer can make a graph and claim that it comes from anywhere. So the source of any particular graph posted is pertinent for those who are interested in the truth rather than just interested in having others think they are right.

What did you think of my previous post re the problem with assessing unemployment figures that would also apply to job creation numbers? And do you dispute that the 'official' unemployment has held steady and or decreased AFTER the GOP regained power in the House? If so, will you give them the credit for bringing down unemployment?

If you don't see it that way, please break down for me the private sector jobs including in your chart and what government intiatives created those. And then compare the private sector jobs created with the government jobs created.

Once you have completed that assignment, then perhaps you might have a credible argument that the Tea Party has prevented job creation or that the Obama Administration has done anything to create anything other than government jobs.

I do refute your claim about unemployment, since your claim is wrong.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Unemployment peaked and was coming down well before the TPers got into office. As for why, it's obvious. The Recovery Act was firmly in place by that point. States were getting needed money and so was the private sector. If you think the TPers had something to do with this, 3 months prior to taking office, then the onous is on you to prove it.

As for my chart, here's the link from Obama's site:

23 Months of Job Growth — Blog — Barack Obama

Now you'll attack it and me and probably throw in an insult or two, but that won't change the fact the numbers are from the BLS and are correct.

Really? It had peaked and was coming down before late January 2010? You have credible evidence to show this?

When even Obama himself has admitted the Recovery Act did little or nothing to create jobs, your passionate defense of it is pretty weak, don't you think?

Again will you show me the breakdown between government jobs created, which the Recovery Act DID do and private sector jobs that you can clearly identify as resulting from the expenditure of all those billions? THAT is how you gain credibility in this debate. (I will tell you that if you choose to do that, you will probably really REALLY not want to post the honest numbers.)

And you took the numbers from Obama's campaign site. And you pronounce them correct. By whose authority?

If we are to accept whatever is posted on Obama's campaign site as the real deal, will you also accept any numbers I find on Romney's campaign site or any of the various websites maintained by Tea Partiers?

That would be the fair thing to do, don't you think?

And I don't debate via insult. I figure the one to first go ad hominem or starts mud slinging is already bankrupt so far as having anything of substance to offer.

 

[Catalist]

I was very enthused when I first heard about the Tea Party, but feel it has gotten lost in all the rhetoric about race. Now, as a white, I think we have been taking a lot of crap from the third world that is unjustified. But, how do you have an organization that represents the interest of white America without being labeled racist?

Look for example at illegal immigration. 82% of illegals come from south of our border, and happen to be brown skinned. But as soon as you attack illegal aliens as an economic drain you are branded a "racist." We are talking about an economic issue for God sake, not a racial one. They love to paint anything that would hurt illegals with a human rights brush, and that quite simply is bull. Yet if someone stands up and says "Asia for Asians," that is OK.

We whites need a good advertising agency to tell our story and avoid the pitfalls of racism. And this #OWS movement? We damn well better be out there recruiting too. Traditional America has a story to tell, and needs to be represented. This is not a partisan political situation, it is an American one.

 

[The T]

Anybody with a computer can make a graph and claim that it comes from anywhere. So the source of any particular graph posted is pertinent for those who are interested in the truth rather than just interested in having others think they are right.

What did you think of my previous post re the problem with assessing unemployment figures that would also apply to job creation numbers? And do you dispute that the 'official' unemployment has held steady and or decreased AFTER the GOP regained power in the House? If so, will you give them the credit for bringing down unemployment?

If you don't see it that way, please break down for me the private sector jobs including in your chart and what government intiatives created those. And then compare the private sector jobs created with the government jobs created.

Once you have completed that assignment, then perhaps you might have a credible argument that the Tea Party has prevented job creation or that the Obama Administration has done anything to create anything other than government jobs.

I do refute your claim about unemployment, since your claim is wrong.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Unemployment peaked and was coming down well before the TPers got into office. As for why, it's obvious. The Recovery Act was firmly in place by that point. States were getting needed money and so was the private sector. If you think the TPers had something to do with this, 3 months prior to taking office, then the onous is on you to prove it.

As for my chart, here's the link from Obama's site:

23 Months of Job Growth — Blog — Barack Obama

Now you'll attack it and me and probably throw in an insult or two, but that won't change the fact the numbers are from the BLS and are correct.

Really? It had peaked and was coming down before late January 2010? You have credible evidence to show this?

When even Obama himself has admitted the Recovery Act did little or nothing to create jobs, your passionate defense of it is pretty weak, don't you think?

Again will you show me the breakdown between government jobs created, which the Recovery Act DID do and private sector jobs that you can clearly identify as resulting from the expenditure of all those billions? THAT is how you gain credibility in this debate. (I will tell you that if you choose to do that, you will probably really REALLY not want to post the honest numbers.)

And you took the numbers from Obama's campaign site. And you pronounce them correct. By whose authority?

If we are to accept whatever is posted on Obama's campaign site as the real deal, will you also accept any numbers I find on Romney's campaign site or any of the various websites maintained by Tea Partiers?

That would be the fair thing to do, don't you think?

And I don't debate via insult. I figure the one to first go ad hominem or starts mud slinging is already bankrupt so far as having anything of substance to offer.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTRHkRqIjs4"]Krauthammer Slams Obama For Shovel Ready Admission - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo"]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]

Only thing 'Shovel Ready' was cleaning up his bullsqueeze.

 

[Foxfyre]

The books are cooked. How many are OUT of the labour force an no longer counted?

Why should we count retirees?

Because they were forced to retire?? Maybe they could have worked a few more years, perhaps they weren't ready to retire.

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Foxfyre and me. We closed down our business last year as the economy was so bad there was not enough work to go around and there were others who needed it far more than we did. But if the economy had been improving, we would still be in business. So we are unemployed as a result of the bad economy, but we are not counted among the unemployment figures because we did not file for unemployment. Our numbers are legion.

 

[The T]

Why should we count retirees?

Because they were forced to retire?? Maybe they could have worked a few more years, perhaps they weren't ready to retire.

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Foxfyre and me. We closed down our business last year as the economy was so bad there was not enough work to go around and there were others who needed it far more than we did. But if the economy had been improving, we would still be in business. So we are unemployed as a result of the bad economy, but we are not counted among the unemployment figures because we did not file for unemployment. Our numbers are legion.

And repeated by the hundreds of thousands across the Republic.

Sorry it happened to you and Naturegirl...

 

[Foxfyre]

I was very enthused when I first heard about the Tea Party, but feel it has gotten lost in all the rhetoric about race. Now, as a white, I think we have been taking a lot of crap from the third world that is unjustified. But, how do you have an organization that represents the interest of white America without being labeled racist?

Look for example at illegal immigration. 82% of illegals come from south of our border, and happen to be brown skinned. But as soon as you attack illegal aliens as an economic drain you are branded a "racist." We are talking about an economic issue for God sake, not a racial one. They love to paint anything that would hurt illegals with a human rights brush, and that quite simply is bull. Yet if someone stands up and says "Asia for Asians," that is OK.

We whites need a good advertising agency to tell our story and avoid the pitfalls of racism. And this #OWS movement? We damn well better be out there recruiting too. Traditional America has a story to tell, and needs to be represented. This is not a partisan political situation, it is an American one.

If you have left the Tea Party because of racial matters, you have bought into the exact rhetoric with the exact effect the Obama supporters wanted you to believe. They hope to sucker as many people into that concept as they can. With a surrogate media on their side, it is easy for those who don't do their homework to get sucked in.

The Tea Party is not and has never been concerned with race in any form or fashion, or any other social issue for that matter. The Tea Party has three goals and three goals only: To rein in a runaway government and restore fiscal integrity; to restore Constitutional integrity and principles including respect for unalienable rights and individual liberty; and to begin rolling back the national debt.

 

[The T]

I was very enthused when I first heard about the Tea Party, but feel it has gotten lost in all the rhetoric about race. Now, as a white, I think we have been taking a lot of crap from the third world that is unjustified. But, how do you have an organization that represents the interest of white America without being labeled racist?

Look for example at illegal immigration. 82% of illegals come from south of our border, and happen to be brown skinned. But as soon as you attack illegal aliens as an economic drain you are branded a "racist." We are talking about an economic issue for God sake, not a racial one. They love to paint anything that would hurt illegals with a human rights brush, and that quite simply is bull. Yet if someone stands up and says "Asia for Asians," that is OK.

We whites need a good advertising agency to tell our story and avoid the pitfalls of racism. And this #OWS movement? We damn well better be out there recruiting too. Traditional America has a story to tell, and needs to be represented. This is not a partisan political situation, it is an American one.

If you have left the Tea Party because of racial matters, you have bought into the exact rhetoric with the exact effect the Obama supporters wanted you to believe. They hope to sucker as many people into that concept as they can. With a surrogate media on their side, it is easy for those who don't do their homework to get sucked in.

The Tea Party is not and has never been concerned with race in any form or fashion, or any other social issue for that matter. The Tea Party has three goals and three goals only: To rein in a runaway government and restore fiscal integrity; to restore Constitutional integrity and principles including respect for unalienable rights and individual liberty; and to begin rolling back the national debt.

Indeed...bottom line...Individual Liberty...and keeping our own government in check in our best interest and that of liberty.

Race is an issue for the weak minded.

 

[Staidhup]

According to Joe Biden, the economy would be fixed if it just hadn't been for that nasty old Tea Party. (Presumably we would also have a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, the millionaires would have been humbled, corporate welfare would be ended, and everybody would be healthy, wealthy, and wise too??????)

Vice President Joe Biden admitted to a group of supporters in New Hampshire this afternoon that the President would have been able help the economy "much, more" if the Tea Party hadn't taken the House.

Biden showed the audience the Obama campaigns chart of job growth during the President's first term in office and accused the Tea Party for stalling the recovery, because of the debt limit fight.
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing economy | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Of course we dont want to mention the two years that President Obama had a super majority in the Senate, a healthy majority in the House for his first two years while he ran up trillion dollar plus deficits and passed a healthcare bill that now a large majority of Americans want repealed and the Supreme Court will probably declare unconstitutional. And he didn't do a damn thing to fix the economy.

First it was all Baby Bush's fault, then it was more serious then we had imagined, then it was corporations reluctance to hire, then it was those greedy bankers, then it was wall street, then it was the wealthy, then it was those dam republicans, now it's the Tea Party. I think that sums it up about right. But then again it couldn't be their inability to address the problem with two years of total control of congress and the white house could it? What a pathetic group of whiners. Now as it concerns the mouth piece Biden, that fool couldn't and wouldn't tell the truth if his life depended upon it. Proves why my theory about mediocre attorney's and need to feed their ego's and stuff their pockets in the service of the country and term limits.

 

[pinqy]

Why should we count retirees?

Because they were forced to retire?? Maybe they could have worked a few more years, perhaps they weren't ready to retire.

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Foxfyre and me. We closed down our business last year as the economy was so bad there was not enough work to go around and there were others who needed it far more than we did. But if the economy had been improving, we would still be in business. So we are unemployed as a result of the bad economy, but we are not counted among the unemployment figures because we did not file for unemployment. Our numbers are legion.

Most of the people counted in the unemployment figures did not file for unemployment. UI benefits are not in anyway part of the Unemployment figures.

It's simple...if you are not TRYING to work, you're not unemployed. For all practical purposes, the reason for not trying is irrelevant as the impact on the labor market is the same. Someone not trying to work will not be hired, is not competing for work, and does not tell us how hard it actually is to get a job. At most it tells us how hard people think it is, and that's not the same thing at all.

Oh, and in April, there were approximately 484,000 unemployed people who had been (unincorporated) self-employed or unpaid family workers (family members in family run business or farm). http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm

 

[pinqy]

Who put out the chart you peviously posted?

Does it matter? The numbers are from the BLS. If you think they're wrong, get something more accurate to show us.

The books are cooked. How many are OUT of the labour force an no longer counted?

All of them. That's by definition of "Not in the Labor Force." They're still counted in the Population (unless they're in jail, an institution, or the military). But how is that cooking the books? It's the definition of Unemployed that you must be trying to work. That's always been the definition. Why on earth do you think someone who won't even look for work should be considered the same as someone trying to work?

 

[Foxfyre]

According to Joe Biden, the economy would be fixed if it just hadn't been for that nasty old Tea Party. (Presumably we would also have a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, the millionaires would have been humbled, corporate welfare would be ended, and everybody would be healthy, wealthy, and wise too??????)

Vice President Joe Biden admitted to a group of supporters in New Hampshire this afternoon that the President would have been able help the economy "much, more" if the Tea Party hadn't taken the House.

Biden showed the audience the Obama campaigns chart of job growth during the President's first term in office and accused the Tea Party for stalling the recovery, because of the debt limit fight.
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing economy | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Of course we dont want to mention the two years that President Obama had a super majority in the Senate, a healthy majority in the House for his first two years while he ran up trillion dollar plus deficits and passed a healthcare bill that now a large majority of Americans want repealed and the Supreme Court will probably declare unconstitutional. And he didn't do a damn thing to fix the economy.

First it was all Baby Bush's fault, then it was more serious then we had imagined, then it was corporations reluctance to hire, then it was those greedy bankers, then it was wall street, then it was the wealthy, then it was those dam republicans, now it's the Tea Party. I think that sums it up about right. But then again it couldn't be their inability to address the problem with two years of total control of congress and the white house could it? What a pathetic group of whiners. Now as it concerns the mouth piece Biden, that fool couldn't and wouldn't tell the truth if his life depended upon it. Proves why my theory about mediocre attorney's and need to feed their ego's and stuff their pockets in the service of the country and term limits.

No you left out the 1 percenters and then Romney's business experience not being any kind of qualification to be President. Neither of those were moving the polls for the left at all--see BluePhantom's election year polling thread--so now the Tea Party is the target.

What's interesting is the Tea Party are so evil, but we can't get our esteemed fearless leader or his VP spokesperson to even comment on the rogue OWS groups that are terrorizing people across the nation. If it turns out lack of attention to the OWS is affecting the polls, I wonder what they'll do then?

 

[The T]

According to Joe Biden, the economy would be fixed if it just hadn't been for that nasty old Tea Party. (Presumably we would also have a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, the millionaires would have been humbled, corporate welfare would be ended, and everybody would be healthy, wealthy, and wise too??????)



Of course we dont want to mention the two years that President Obama had a super majority in the Senate, a healthy majority in the House for his first two years while he ran up trillion dollar plus deficits and passed a healthcare bill that now a large majority of Americans want repealed and the Supreme Court will probably declare unconstitutional. And he didn't do a damn thing to fix the economy.

First it was all Baby Bush's fault, then it was more serious then we had imagined, then it was corporations reluctance to hire, then it was those greedy bankers, then it was wall street, then it was the wealthy, then it was those dam republicans, now it's the Tea Party. I think that sums it up about right. But then again it couldn't be their inability to address the problem with two years of total control of congress and the white house could it? What a pathetic group of whiners. Now as it concerns the mouth piece Biden, that fool couldn't and wouldn't tell the truth if his life depended upon it. Proves why my theory about mediocre attorney's and need to feed their ego's and stuff their pockets in the service of the country and term limits.

No you left out the 1 percenters and then Romney's business experience not being any kind of qualification to be President. Neither of those were moving the polls for the left at all--see BluePhantom's election year polling thread--so now the Tea Party is the target.

What's interesting is the Tea Party are so evil, but we can't get our esteemed fearless leader or his VP spokesperson to even comment on the rogue OWS groups that are terrorizing people across the nation. If it turns out lack of attention to the OWS is affecting the polls, I wonder what they'll do then?

Speaking of OWS and thier exploits with the NATO Summit? Jay Carney has an incredibly bad time with words---Does the President support them still?

Watch Jay Carney Struggle to Answer if Obama Still Supports Occupy Wall Street

 

[Foxfyre]

Because they were forced to retire?? Maybe they could have worked a few more years, perhaps they weren't ready to retire.

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Foxfyre and me. We closed down our business last year as the economy was so bad there was not enough work to go around and there were others who needed it far more than we did. But if the economy had been improving, we would still be in business. So we are unemployed as a result of the bad economy, but we are not counted among the unemployment figures because we did not file for unemployment. Our numbers are legion.

Most of the people counted in the unemployment figures did not file for unemployment. UI benefits are not in anyway part of the Unemployment figures.

It's simple...if you are not TRYING to work, you're not unemployed. For all practical purposes, the reason for not trying is irrelevant as the impact on the labor market is the same. Someone not trying to work will not be hired, is not competing for work, and does not tell us how hard it actually is to get a job. At most it tells us how hard people think it is, and that's not the same thing at all.

Oh, and in April, there were approximately 484,000 unemployed people who had been (unincorporated) self-employed or unpaid family workers (family members in family run business or farm). Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted

Only those who file for unemployment insurance are counted in the official government unemployment numbers. Those who have exhausted their benefits, who have given up, or who are severely underemployed just to get a little cash in hand are not counted in the offical unemployment numbers. Which is why the real unemplyment figures are often as much as double or even more than the official unemplyment figure.

 

[pinqy]

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Foxfyre and me. We closed down our business last year as the economy was so bad there was not enough work to go around and there were others who needed it far more than we did. But if the economy had been improving, we would still be in business. So we are unemployed as a result of the bad economy, but we are not counted among the unemployment figures because we did not file for unemployment. Our numbers are legion.

Most of the people counted in the unemployment figures did not file for unemployment. UI benefits are not in anyway part of the Unemployment figures.

It's simple...if you are not TRYING to work, you're not unemployed. For all practical purposes, the reason for not trying is irrelevant as the impact on the labor market is the same. Someone not trying to work will not be hired, is not competing for work, and does not tell us how hard it actually is to get a job. At most it tells us how hard people think it is, and that's not the same thing at all.

Oh, and in April, there were approximately 484,000 unemployed people who had been (unincorporated) self-employed or unpaid family workers (family members in family run business or farm). Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted

Only those who file for unemployment insurance are counted in the official government unemployment numbers. Those who have exhausted their benefits, who have given up, or who are severely underemployed just to get a little cash in hand are not counted in the offical unemployment numbers. Which is why the real unemplyment figures are often as much as double or even more than the official unemplyment figure.

And your source for that is????
Let's look at facts:
Employment Situation Technical Note

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Emphasis mine.

Or if you had looked at How the Government Measure Unemployment

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. ...
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project.

Unemployment Insurance benefits HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN USED TO DETERMINE OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS.

And yes, apparently I do have to shout since I myself end up stating this every month, other people state it, and 3 minutes of research would have told you it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most of the people counted in the unemployment figures did not file for unemployment. UI benefits are not in anyway part of the Unemployment figures.

It's simple...if you are not TRYING to work, you're not unemployed. For all practical purposes, the reason for not trying is irrelevant as the impact on the labor market is the same. Someone not trying to work will not be hired, is not competing for work, and does not tell us how hard it actually is to get a job. At most it tells us how hard people think it is, and that's not the same thing at all.

Oh, and in April, there were approximately 484,000 unemployed people who had been (unincorporated) self-employed or unpaid family workers (family members in family run business or farm). Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted

Only those who file for unemployment insurance are counted in the official government unemployment numbers. Those who have exhausted their benefits, who have given up, or who are severely underemployed just to get a little cash in hand are not counted in the offical unemployment numbers. Which is why the real unemplyment figures are often as much as double or even more than the official unemplyment figure.

And your source for that is????
Let's look at facts:
Employment Situation Technical Note

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Emphasis mine.

Or if you had looked at How the Government Measure Unemployment

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. ...
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project.

Unemployment Insurance benefits HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN USED TO DETERMINE OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS.

And yes, apparently I do have to shout since I myself end up stating this every month, other people state it, and 3 minutes of research would have told you it.

Okay you're right and I stand corrected. I was thinking of the new cliams filed that comes out every week.

So after looking at the data a bit, it seems that our government determines the unemployment rate by polling 60,000 households? I've never been polled about that. Nobody I know has ever been polled about that.

Do you trust the numbers that the government then feeds us?