4.2% GDP growth, 5.8% for quarter, no phony Pub crises, disfunction- TY for nothing....

[Freewill]

1 decent quarter out of what, 27 that Obammy's been pretending to be President?

What is a decent quarter?

One minted before 1964.

 

[Theowl32]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Meanwhile the same media ignored the 4.6 percent in 2006,which is the last time the republicans had majority power, and they harped the high gas prices.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number. (LOL at anyone trying to say it was not a deliberate lie) The bigger point is the hypocrisy of the media. Of course the bigger point is shluffed off and the "technicality" is the focus.

Holy shit.

 

[rightwinger]

So we are back to being saved again...from shovel rdy jobs that werent shovel rdy have now mysteriously been found again........

Do you have any concept of what a shovel ready job is?

Obviously Obama didn't know as he plunged our children into debt.

Obama smiled and interjected, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

The Stimulus was meant to provide immediate employment opportunities. They did not want to allocate money to a project that could not begin work for another five years. Hence the term "shovel ready" meaning jobs that could start right away
Obama did not promise shovel ready jobs. It was a condition to recieve stimulus funding. It was up to the states to define which jobs were shovel ready. Some states did a good job at using stimulus funds others just used it to balance their budget

So Obama opened the bank door and threw out a stack of your children's money and said have at it without a thought of where it would go. So his shovel ready comment supports what you say? I will agree that there were a lot of projects completed with the stimulus money to that there is little argument. What I saw personally is a boom in sign making. Everywhere I looked there were signs proclaiming that a project was being funded by Obama himself. (hyperbole) Although at most I didn't see anything being done, could have been behind the scenes.

Never the less, his comment about shovel ready and the stupid "cash for clunkers" is enough evidence for me to show that Obama really had no real ideas on what to do except spend money. Your children's money.

Actually, he opened up the bank door and spent half the money on tax cuts (bad idea) and sent the rest to the states to allocate to public works projects, teachers, police, firemen or whatever eligible project they had

I would rather have my childrens money spent on providing money to Americans than on two senseless wars. But conservatives don't bitch about spending money on two fucking invasions, only about spending money on Americans

By the way...Stimulus worked and it helped to stop a depression

Yeah Obama sure fixed a cold by giving the working man pneumonia.

Fixed a cold?

Five Quarters of negative GDP
Losing 750,000 jobs a month
Stock Market lost half of its value
Banks and auto companies near collapse

Stimulus and TARP reversed that....thank Obama

You mean, thanks Bush for TARP.

So to avoid a depression we save the banks and corporations which today have record profits. Due in part to low interest rates, which screw the working man, and the government printing money like mad. We may have avoided a depression but what was created in the wake will be far worse.

.

I would thank Bush for TARP except for the fact that his TARP was ineffective. Like a true Republican. he just threw them money with no strings attached. Obama demanded corporate restructuring, stock to cover the loan, management and labor concessions

After the Bush TARP,GDP was still negative, the market kept collapsing, unemployment increased to over 700,000 jobs lost a month.
After the Obama TARP, GDP reversed and went positive, the market reversed and job losses declined

Obama stopped a depression. You can thank him for it

 

[Freewill]

You think a liberal will explain to any of us why they think the democrats deliberately ignored all of Bush's warnings in an election year?

You think they will deny they did ignore ALL of Bush's warnings in 2008, an election year?

I wonder what their theories are on why the democrats, who controlled the House AND Senate since 2007 ignored all of Bush's warnings in 2008 about the housing bubble.

Who is dumber. Rightwinger or Franco?

Although I agree that in effect the left wing ignored Bush I think they did it because they are always so sure of themselves but always so wrong. As Reagan said, it isn't that they are ignorant they just know so much that isn't so. (or something like that)

I have to believe that the left were doing what they thought was right even though they intentionally, in my opinion, crashed the economy. And that there in lies the problem, what the liberals think is right is so far from reality.

 

[Theowl32]

You think a liberal will explain to any of us why they think the democrats deliberately ignored all of Bush's warnings in an election year?

You think they will deny they did ignore ALL of Bush's warnings in 2008, an election year?

I wonder what their theories are on why the democrats, who controlled the House AND Senate since 2007 ignored all of Bush's warnings in 2008 about the housing bubble.

Who is dumber. Rightwinger or Franco?

Although I agree that in effect the left wing ignored Bush I think they did it because they are always so sure of themselves but always so wrong. As Reagan said, it isn't that they are ignorant they just know so much that isn't so. (something like that)

I have to believe that the left were doing what they thought was right even though they intentionally, in my opinion, crashed the economy. And that there in lies the problem, what the liberals think is right is so far from reality.

Well, if they INTENTIONALLY crashed the economy, (which is what they did to gain power in the 2008 elections) then they did not do what they thought was right.

Hold on. You are right. You see, to the democrats, capitalism is evil. socialism is good. Ends justify the means. So, many of them, crashing the economy and bringing the country into a socialist utopia is good to them.

Then again, I think they are power hungry pieces of shit, and many of the, would kill their mothers to gain power.

Speaking of that, remember when Obama's grandmother claimed he was born in Kenya, then the next day she died? I do. Look it up.

 

[Freewill]

So we are back to being saved again...from shovel rdy jobs that werent shovel rdy have now mysteriously been found again........

Do you have any concept of what a shovel ready job is?

Obviously Obama didn't know as he plunged our children into debt.

Obama smiled and interjected, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

The Stimulus was meant to provide immediate employment opportunities. They did not want to allocate money to a project that could not begin work for another five years. Hence the term "shovel ready" meaning jobs that could start right away
Obama did not promise shovel ready jobs. It was a condition to recieve stimulus funding. It was up to the states to define which jobs were shovel ready. Some states did a good job at using stimulus funds others just used it to balance their budget

So Obama opened the bank door and threw out a stack of your children's money and said have at it without a thought of where it would go. So his shovel ready comment supports what you say? I will agree that there were a lot of projects completed with the stimulus money to that there is little argument. What I saw personally is a boom in sign making. Everywhere I looked there were signs proclaiming that a project was being funded by Obama himself. (hyperbole) Although at most I didn't see anything being done, could have been behind the scenes.

Never the less, his comment about shovel ready and the stupid "cash for clunkers" is enough evidence for me to show that Obama really had no real ideas on what to do except spend money. Your children's money.

Actually, he opened up the bank door and spent half the money on tax cuts (bad idea) and sent the rest to the states to allocate to public works projects, teachers, police, firemen or whatever eligible project they had

I would rather have my childrens money spent on providing money to Americans than on two senseless wars. But conservatives don't bitch about spending money on two fucking invasions, only about spending money on Americans

By the way...Stimulus worked and it helped to stop a depression

Yeah Obama sure fixed a cold by giving the working man pneumonia.

Fixed a cold?

Five Quarters of negative GDP
Losing 750,000 jobs a month
Stock Market lost half of its value
Banks and auto companies near collapse

Stimulus and TARP reversed that....thank Obama

You mean, thanks Bush for TARP.

So to avoid a depression we save the banks and corporations which today have record profits. Due in part to low interest rates, which screw the working man, and the government printing money like mad. We may have avoided a depression but what was created in the wake will be far worse.

.

I would thank Bush for TARP except for the fact that his TARP was ineffective. Like a true Republican. he just threw them money with no strings attached. Obama demanded corporate restructuring, stock to cover the loan, management and labor concessions

After the Bush TARP,GDP was still negative, the market kept collapsing, unemployment increased to over 700,000 jobs lost a month.
After the Obama TARP, GDP reversed and went positive, the market reversed and job losses declined

Obama stopped a depression. You can thank him for it

Oh BS, BS, BS.

TARP was a bill passed by the DEMOCRAT controlled congress and signed by Bush. What you have posted is liberal propaganda. Of course you had to because you gave Obama credit for what he didn't do.

 

[Freewill]

You think a liberal will explain to any of us why they think the democrats deliberately ignored all of Bush's warnings in an election year?

You think they will deny they did ignore ALL of Bush's warnings in 2008, an election year?

I wonder what their theories are on why the democrats, who controlled the House AND Senate since 2007 ignored all of Bush's warnings in 2008 about the housing bubble.

Who is dumber. Rightwinger or Franco?

Although I agree that in effect the left wing ignored Bush I think they did it because they are always so sure of themselves but always so wrong. As Reagan said, it isn't that they are ignorant they just know so much that isn't so. (something like that)

I have to believe that the left were doing what they thought was right even though they intentionally, in my opinion, crashed the economy. And that there in lies the problem, what the liberals think is right is so far from reality.

Well, if they INTENTIONALLY crashed the economy, (which is what they did to gain power in the 2008 elections) then they did not do what they thought was right.

Hold on. You are right. You see, to the democrats, capitalism is evil. socialism is good. Ends justify the means. So, many of them, crashing the economy and bringing the country into a socialist utopia is good to them.

Then again, I think they are power hungry pieces of shit, and many of the, would kill their mothers to gain power.

Speaking of that, remember when Obama's grandmother claimed he was born in Kenya, then the next day she died? I do. Look it up.

During the Bush 1 and Clinton election the MSM reported that the economy was much worse then it actually was. Surprisingly after Clinton was elected the economy improved, as reported, overnight. So in the run up to Obama they did the same thing except this time they actually did crash the economy. No one can be as stupid as the left wing had to be in creating the situation in the housing industry. But maybe I am wrong and they are that stupid. Problem is, they are still there, we need to clean house.

 

[pinqy]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

 

[rightwinger]

So we are back to being saved again...from shovel rdy jobs that werent shovel rdy have now mysteriously been found again........

Do you have any concept of what a shovel ready job is?

Obviously Obama didn't know as he plunged our children into debt.

Obama smiled and interjected, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

The Stimulus was meant to provide immediate employment opportunities. They did not want to allocate money to a project that could not begin work for another five years. Hence the term "shovel ready" meaning jobs that could start right away
Obama did not promise shovel ready jobs. It was a condition to recieve stimulus funding. It was up to the states to define which jobs were shovel ready. Some states did a good job at using stimulus funds others just used it to balance their budget

So Obama opened the bank door and threw out a stack of your children's money and said have at it without a thought of where it would go. So his shovel ready comment supports what you say? I will agree that there were a lot of projects completed with the stimulus money to that there is little argument. What I saw personally is a boom in sign making. Everywhere I looked there were signs proclaiming that a project was being funded by Obama himself. (hyperbole) Although at most I didn't see anything being done, could have been behind the scenes.

Never the less, his comment about shovel ready and the stupid "cash for clunkers" is enough evidence for me to show that Obama really had no real ideas on what to do except spend money. Your children's money.

Actually, he opened up the bank door and spent half the money on tax cuts (bad idea) and sent the rest to the states to allocate to public works projects, teachers, police, firemen or whatever eligible project they had

I would rather have my childrens money spent on providing money to Americans than on two senseless wars. But conservatives don't bitch about spending money on two fucking invasions, only about spending money on Americans

By the way...Stimulus worked and it helped to stop a depression

Yeah Obama sure fixed a cold by giving the working man pneumonia.

Fixed a cold?

Five Quarters of negative GDP
Losing 750,000 jobs a month
Stock Market lost half of its value
Banks and auto companies near collapse

Stimulus and TARP reversed that....thank Obama

You mean, thanks Bush for TARP.

So to avoid a depression we save the banks and corporations which today have record profits. Due in part to low interest rates, which screw the working man, and the government printing money like mad. We may have avoided a depression but what was created in the wake will be far worse.

.

I would thank Bush for TARP except for the fact that his TARP was ineffective. Like a true Republican. he just threw them money with no strings attached. Obama demanded corporate restructuring, stock to cover the loan, management and labor concessions

After the Bush TARP,GDP was still negative, the market kept collapsing, unemployment increased to over 700,000 jobs lost a month.
After the Obama TARP, GDP reversed and went positive, the market reversed and job losses declined

Obama stopped a depression. You can thank him for it

Oh BS, BS, BS.

TARP was a bill passed by the DEMOCRAT controlled congress and signed by Bush. What you have posted is liberal propaganda. Of course you had to because you gave Obama credit for what he didn't do.

Nice reversal

First you wanted to credit Bush for TARP, now you say he had nothing to do with it

 

[chikenwing]

FINALLY! Could have gotten out of this mess years ago, Pub dupes. So could Iraq, Syria, Afghan, Libya, Ukraine. Pub world depressions cause chaos, chumps, and only the USA has the power to start and end them....

http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us/3_0_s_0_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNHwVXcHexCrWd5FmbkuFUQqwAZvfw&cid=52778593212692&url=http://online.wsj.com/articles/gdp-expanded-at-4-2-rate-in-second-quarter-1409229416&ei=iDj_U8G1A8OWgAeNx4CICg&sig2=KTyqh6mnpHi8-uyxjpz02A&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-1256418739487713048&sid=en_us-b&ssid=b

So which party has been in control for the better part of a decade?

Now damn it....don't let those pesky FACTS get in the way of this idiot's "argument". Franco is one dumb son-of-a- bitch

Except for less than 6 months, 7/2009-2-2010, Pubs have been able to block anything, brainwashed shyttehead.

So in other words The Dems are incompetent,2/3 of the Gov just isn't enough.

 

[Theowl32]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

 

[AceRothstein]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

That story was debunked. The guy that was supposedly faking the results, Julius Buckmon, hadn't worked for the Census Bureau since 2011.

 

[pinqy]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

I don't give a shit what the media "celebrated" or didn't. So no, that's not my focus.

My focus is your dishonesty. You claimed that the 7.8 percent was confirmed as a lie. That was a false statement. Your source, as I figured, was the NY Post article(s) where he was very careful not to claim any actual manipulation. So what are they talking about? It's called "curb-stoning" where the data collector just fills out the form from his/her car and doesn't actually conduct the interview. Of course it happens, that's not news. Census has many many rules and regulations to stop it or catch it. That's why Buckmon was fired (in 2010). Buckmon claimed he was told to, but then why was he fired? Note that even Buckmon never claimed he was instructed has to HOW to fake the numbers...just to get in completed interviews.

But while it does happen, despite all precautions, that's not manipulation in that the collector can have no idea what if any the effect would be. And the most common method of curb-stoning is not to change anything from the previous month (households are in for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4.

In short, your "evidence" is that because curb-stoning has always occurred (and been guarded against....audits are done), and an anonymous source claims it happened in September 2012, then the aggregate, final number is clearly fake and confirmed to be a lie.

Interesting standard of evidence.

And look at at graph of that year...does the drop really seem out of place, or part of the trend?
red line is not seasonally adjusted, blue is seasonally adjusted (official rate)

 

[Theowl32]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

I don't give a shit what the media "celebrated" or didn't. So no, that's not my focus.

My focus is your dishonesty. You claimed that the 7.8 percent was confirmed as a lie. That was a false statement. Your source, as I figured, was the NY Post article(s) where he was very careful not to claim any actual manipulation. So what are they talking about? It's called "curb-stoning" where the data collector just fills out the form from his/her car and doesn't actually conduct the interview. Of course it happens, that's not news. Census has many many rules and regulations to stop it or catch it. That's why Buckmon was fired (in 2010). Buckmon claimed he was told to, but then why was he fired? Note that even Buckmon never claimed he was instructed has to HOW to fake the numbers...just to get in completed interviews.

But while it does happen, despite all precautions, that's not manipulation in that the collector can have no idea what if any the effect would be. And the most common method of curb-stoning is not to change anything from the previous month (households are in for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4.

In short, your "evidence" is that because curb-stoning has always occurred (and been guarded against....audits are done), and an anonymous source claims it happened in September 2012, then the aggregate, final number is clearly fake and confirmed to be a lie.

Interesting standard of evidence.

And look at at graph of that year...does the drop really seem out of place, or part of the trend?
red line is not seasonally adjusted, blue is seasonally adjusted (official rate)

Your focus can be whatever you want. The point is what the media celebrated. The point is why the media celebrated. The point is the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in 2006 and the media condemned Bush for the high gas prices and crony capitalism. The point is the economy took a dump after the democrats won the House and Senate through this kind of biased reporting.

It happened again in 2012. Celebrating 7.8 percent is pathetic, especially when they did not say shit about 4.6 in 2006. Meanwhile the gas prices were the HIGHEST EVER and media that condemned Bush in 2006 said it was a good thing for the climate in 2012.

You go ahead and keep on thinking there was no funny business going on. Good for you. Of course you do not want to focus on what the crucial point is. Oh, I get why that is.

 

[rightwinger]

You think a liberal will explain to any of us why they think the democrats deliberately ignored all of Bush's warnings in an election year?

You think they will deny they did ignore ALL of Bush's warnings in 2008, an election year?

I wonder what their theories are on why the democrats, who controlled the House AND Senate since 2007 ignored all of Bush's warnings in 2008 about the housing bubble.

Who is dumber. Rightwinger or Franco?

Although I agree that in effect the left wing ignored Bush I think they did it because they are always so sure of themselves but always so wrong. As Reagan said, it isn't that they are ignorant they just know so much that isn't so. (something like that)

I have to believe that the left were doing what they thought was right even though they intentionally, in my opinion, crashed the economy. And that there in lies the problem, what the liberals think is right is so far from reality.

Well, if they INTENTIONALLY crashed the economy, (which is what they did to gain power in the 2008 elections) then they did not do what they thought was right.

Hold on. You are right. You see, to the democrats, capitalism is evil. socialism is good. Ends justify the means. So, many of them, crashing the economy and bringing the country into a socialist utopia is good to them.

Then again, I think they are power hungry pieces of shit, and many of the, would kill their mothers to gain power.

Speaking of that, remember when Obama's grandmother claimed he was born in Kenya, then the next day she died? I do. Look it up.

HA....HA.....HA....HA

You are going to have to show us that one

 

[Theowl32]

You think a liberal will explain to any of us why they think the democrats deliberately ignored all of Bush's warnings in an election year?

You think they will deny they did ignore ALL of Bush's warnings in 2008, an election year?

I wonder what their theories are on why the democrats, who controlled the House AND Senate since 2007 ignored all of Bush's warnings in 2008 about the housing bubble.

Who is dumber. Rightwinger or Franco?

Although I agree that in effect the left wing ignored Bush I think they did it because they are always so sure of themselves but always so wrong. As Reagan said, it isn't that they are ignorant they just know so much that isn't so. (something like that)

I have to believe that the left were doing what they thought was right even though they intentionally, in my opinion, crashed the economy. And that there in lies the problem, what the liberals think is right is so far from reality.

Well, if they INTENTIONALLY crashed the economy, (which is what they did to gain power in the 2008 elections) then they did not do what they thought was right.

Hold on. You are right. You see, to the democrats, capitalism is evil. socialism is good. Ends justify the means. So, many of them, crashing the economy and bringing the country into a socialist utopia is good to them.

Then again, I think they are power hungry pieces of shit, and many of the, would kill their mothers to gain power.

Speaking of that, remember when Obama's grandmother claimed he was born in Kenya, then the next day she died? I do. Look it up.

HA....HA.....HA....HA

You are going to have to show us that one

Blog Tamar Yonah Obama Born In Kenya His Grandmother Says Yes. - Arutz Sheva

Did Obama 8217 s grandmother say he was born in Kenya

British Intelligence Advisor Obama Born In Kenya In 1960

 

[AceRothstein]

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

Remember when the liberal media bragged about the false unemployment number of 7.8 percent in October of 2012.

... It was a confirmed lie. That, was obviously an election year.

There is no dispute about that. It is not an opinion by "necons."
.

No it was not a "confirmed lie." It was unusually steep, but it was not manipulation and it clearly fits in the pattern.

For all practical purposes, it would be impossible to manipulate the UE rate.

Remember..the margin of error for the rate is plus or minus 0.2 percentage points.

The number 7.8 percent was a false number. It was for the month of October. The left wing media celebrated it. It turned out to be false.

No, it did not turn out to be false. Quit making things up. Oh, and the 7.8% for October (published 2 November) was unchanged from September. The unexpected drop had been from 8.1 in August to 7.8 in September.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that it came out just before the elections on 2012.

Yes, it was.

Even IF it was not a lie, it was a false number.

And your evidence is......completely lacking. And which is it? First you said it was a confirmed lie, now you're saying it might not have been a lie...which means it couldn't have been confirmed as a lie.

But how are you saying it's false? What data are you using?

Census 8216 faked 8217 2012 election jobs report New York Post

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it was all just a coincidence.

Just so happened to come out just after the horrible debate and just before the November elections. Yeah, all a coincidence.

Unreal, aren;t they?

Plus, the focus is not on the FAKE number. It is on the dishonest coverage. You denying the media did not celebrate the glorious 7.8 percent while they did not say a thing about the 4.6 percent in 2006 (another crucial election year.)

Stop with the technicality and you just keep on believing the number that dropped from 8.1 to 7.8 just before the election was coincidence. You may even feel comfortable with that notion.

That is not the main point. Keep on obfuscating from it though.

I don't give a shit what the media "celebrated" or didn't. So no, that's not my focus.

My focus is your dishonesty. You claimed that the 7.8 percent was confirmed as a lie. That was a false statement. Your source, as I figured, was the NY Post article(s) where he was very careful not to claim any actual manipulation. So what are they talking about? It's called "curb-stoning" where the data collector just fills out the form from his/her car and doesn't actually conduct the interview. Of course it happens, that's not news. Census has many many rules and regulations to stop it or catch it. That's why Buckmon was fired (in 2010). Buckmon claimed he was told to, but then why was he fired? Note that even Buckmon never claimed he was instructed has to HOW to fake the numbers...just to get in completed interviews.

But while it does happen, despite all precautions, that's not manipulation in that the collector can have no idea what if any the effect would be. And the most common method of curb-stoning is not to change anything from the previous month (households are in for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4.

In short, your "evidence" is that because curb-stoning has always occurred (and been guarded against....audits are done), and an anonymous source claims it happened in September 2012, then the aggregate, final number is clearly fake and confirmed to be a lie.

Interesting standard of evidence.

And look at at graph of that year...does the drop really seem out of place, or part of the trend?
red line is not seasonally adjusted, blue is seasonally adjusted (official rate)

Your focus can be whatever you want. The point is what the media celebrated. The point is why the media celebrated. The point is the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in 2006 and the media condemned Bush for the high gas prices and crony capitalism. The point is the economy took a dump after the democrats won the House and Senate through this kind of biased reporting.

It happened again in 2012. Celebrating 7.8 percent is pathetic, especially when they did not say shit about 4.6 in 2006. Meanwhile the gas prices were the HIGHEST EVER and media that condemned Bush in 2006 said it was a good thing for the climate in 2012.

You go ahead and keep on thinking there was no funny business going on. Good for you. Of course you do not want to focus on what the crucial point is. Oh, I get why that is.

The Democrats won Congress in 2006 because of the disaster that was Iraq.

Nobody was celebrating the 7.8% unemployment rate but it was a nice drop from the 10% we saw in 2009.

 

[RandallFlagg]

FINALLY! Could have gotten out of this mess years ago, Pub dupes. So could Iraq, Syria, Afghan, Libya, Ukraine. Pub world depressions cause chaos, chumps, and only the USA has the power to start and end them....

All that with a "Do Nothing Congress"!

I vote for MORE "Do Nothing"!

Tell you what - make sure that traitor Harry "Howdy Doody" Reid remains Majority Leader and your wish will come true. 6 more years of bills piling up on that asshole's desk.

Nothing that you'll have to worry about though. After November, he will be ancient history

Which bills should he move forward?

EVERY bill you dolt! you fucking idiots scream at the top of your worthless lungs that nothing gets done yet you applaud that asshole refusing to allow bills to come to the floor for a vote. Hypocrites.

 

[Manonthestreet]

So are we officially in the Obama economy now........just asking so when next disaster report emerges its not back to Booooosshhhhh

 

[pinqy]

Your focus can be whatever you want. The point is what the media celebrated.

Did they? I remember a lot of attention was spent on Jack Welch's tweet that the numbers were suspicious.

The point is why the media celebrated. The point is the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in 2006 and the media condemned Bush for the high gas prices and crony capitalism. The point is the economy took a dump after the democrats won the House and Senate through this kind of biased reporting.

How does the reporting cause the economy to take a dump? As for the rate....a one month change from 8.1 to 7.8 is significant and a good sign when the rate had been as high as 10.1.
On the other hand. I don't recall anyone complaining about 4.6 in 2006, especially when that was an improvement over 2005.

You go ahead and keep on thinking there was no funny business going on.

Would you like a link to the OIG report after their investigation? They found no wrongdoing or manipulation.

[Of course you do not want to focus on what the crucial point is. Oh, I get why that is.

I am focusing on the crucial point. You're the one weirdly claiming media "celebration" or lack thereof somehow changes the economy.