BLS economists donating to Obama

[Wry Catcher]

Apparently, some of the people at the BLS (the org that is rigging employment data); are donating the Obama campaign.

http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

I guess all the trolls 'think' alike.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is it thus reasonable to assume that Republican criminals in the BLS manipulated the UE number down 3/10ths of a pct point in October of 1992,

for the benefit of George Bush Sr.?

Do you think that's probably what happened?

It's safe to say that the numbers shown on the BLS do not show true to reality

That didn't answer my question.

You had no problem stating as fact that the numbers this month were criminally altered.

Were they criminally altered in 1992, by Republicans, when the same exact thing occurred statistically?

To answer your question I did not vote for the liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good grief.

The article also fails to mention that anybody can go to the Center for Responsive Politics website, enter Bureau of Labor Statistics as the employer, and see that there are more than two employees there who contribute to political campaigns, including Republican ones. They are perfectly entitled to do it and it does not constitute a conflict of interest.

Am I the only Republican here who is embarrassed by this kind of nonsense?

I don't think this thread is about them contributing to obama, but the fact the numbers do not match with actual reality and they contribute to obama makes one go HUMMMMMM something not right with this picture.
I think that's the basis for this thread.

I see. So the basis for this thread is that 2 employees out of about 2,500 that work for the BLS contributed to the Obama campaign and that is cause to go HUMMMMM?

If the GOP wants to win the White House back, and I would hope that they do, they really need to do their best to shrug the wide public perception that the party is made up of conspiracy nuts who grasp at whatever straws they can find. The Romney campaign is wisely doing this. I just hope they make a big enough point that they are distancing themselves from this kind of horseshit.

Sadly for the GOP, Welch is making a lot of noise, which he has every ability and right to do, but he is also proving a nasty embarrassment, as such accusations are too easily debunked.

if their are two their are more.

 

[paperview]

Hey: Quick question Job Truthers: Has your chosen GOP debate hercules come out and embraced your trutherism?

I mean, you would think a guy who understand business and numbers and all, he'd be pulling a Jack Welchism.

So, where's ole Roms on this it-chew?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently, some of the people at the BLS (the org that is rigging employment data); are donating the Obama campaign.

http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

Just a priceless tidbit from the daft OP's daft link:

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle. According to his LinkedIn profile, Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012.

So, apparently, a guy who's such a zealous supporter of Obama that he was willing to donate what amounts to about 70 cents a day for the year 2012 to Obama's campaign,

who hasn't worked at the BLS for at least 2 months,

somehow was able, not to mention willing, to sneak back into the BLS, gain access to secure employment data, and criminally alter it, subjecting himself to the possibility of fine and imprisonment,

all for the sake of making the UE data look a little better for the president who was in fact already well ahead in his bid for re-election.

That's stupid. Stop being stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey: Quick question Job Truthers: Has your chosen GOP debate hercules come out and embraced your trutherism?

I mean, you would think a guy who understand business and numbers and all, he'd be pulling a Jack Welchism.

So, where's ole Roms on this it-chew?

Job truthers? Is this the new name for racist?
Their is only one name I can think up for you Idiot hack.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey: Quick question Job Truthers: Has your chosen GOP debate hercules come out and embraced your trutherism?

I mean, you would think a guy who understand business and numbers and all, he'd be pulling a Jack Welchism.

So, where's ole Roms on this it-chew?

No. Ironically the Romney take on the numbers was that they were legit but they were bad.

Romney's trying to portray the numbers as bad, the Welchers are trying to portray the numbers as so good that they must be fake.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't think this thread is about them contributing to obama, but the fact the numbers do not match with actual reality and they contribute to obama makes one go HUMMMMMM something not right with this picture.
I think that's the basis for this thread.

I see. So the basis for this thread is that 2 employees out of about 2,500 that work for the BLS contributed to the Obama campaign and that is cause to go HUMMMMM?

If the GOP wants to win the White House back, and I would hope that they do, they really need to do their best to shrug the wide public perception that the party is made up of conspiracy nuts who grasp at whatever straws they can find. The Romney campaign is wisely doing this. I just hope they make a big enough point that they are distancing themselves from this kind of horseshit.

Sadly for the GOP, Welch is making a lot of noise, which he has every ability and right to do, but he is also proving a nasty embarrassment, as such accusations are too easily debunked.

if their are two their are more.

By that logic then if there are two BLS employees donating to Republican candidates there are more? Is that what I am to understand? I encourage you to do a donor lookup at the Center for Responsive Politics at opensecrets.org, the same place the conspiracy nuts are going who found out about the two Obama donors, and search for yourself. Do a little primary research of your own. You will see that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican organizations, including for candidates. Welch is grasping at straws.

Lending any credence to this theory is exactly the WRONG thing for the Romney campaign to do.

 

[Toro]

Job twoofers = "joofers?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see. So the basis for this thread is that 2 employees out of about 2,500 that work for the BLS contributed to the Obama campaign and that is cause to go HUMMMMM?

If the GOP wants to win the White House back, and I would hope that they do, they really need to do their best to shrug the wide public perception that the party is made up of conspiracy nuts who grasp at whatever straws they can find. The Romney campaign is wisely doing this. I just hope they make a big enough point that they are distancing themselves from this kind of horseshit.

Sadly for the GOP, Welch is making a lot of noise, which he has every ability and right to do, but he is also proving a nasty embarrassment, as such accusations are too easily debunked.

if their are two their are more.

By that logic then if there are two BLS employees donating to Republican candidates there are more? Is that what I am to understand? I encourage you to do a donor lookup at the Center for Responsive Politics at opensecrets.org, the same place the conspiracy nuts are going who found out about the two Obama donors, and search for yourself. Do a little primary research of your own. You will see that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican organizations, including for candidates. Welch is grasping at straws.

Lending any credence to this theory is exactly the WRONG thing for the Romney campaign to do.

Of course you don't want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy and his failures. Thats the last thing you want to happen.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

if their are two their are more.

By that logic then if there are two BLS employees donating to Republican candidates there are more? Is that what I am to understand? I encourage you to do a donor lookup at the Center for Responsive Politics at opensecrets.org, the same place the conspiracy nuts are going who found out about the two Obama donors, and search for yourself. Do a little primary research of your own. You will see that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican organizations, including for candidates. Welch is grasping at straws.

Lending any credence to this theory is exactly the WRONG thing for the Romney campaign to do.

Of course you don't want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy and his failures. Thats the last thing you want to happen.

Way to assume my beliefs. Do me a favor and point out any post I have made in support of Obama.

I happen to want Obama out of the White House, and that is not going to be helped by lending any credence to crackpots who desperately grasp at easily debunked premises to support extraordinary claims. Romney is better off not stooping to such depths.

Something has happened to the Republican party, my party, that I don't much care for. The Tea Party movement, which was initially non-partisan, and which I had no fundamental beef with, was suddenly invaded by far right nut bars after the 2008 election and essentially got hijacked by the GOP to exploit votes. The damage this has caused the GOP is extreme. The party of reason and sensible fiscal policy has now become the party of conspiracy nuts, and the Democrats are shooting at fish in a barrel.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By that logic then if there are two BLS employees donating to Republican candidates there are more? Is that what I am to understand? I encourage you to do a donor lookup at the Center for Responsive Politics at opensecrets.org, the same place the conspiracy nuts are going who found out about the two Obama donors, and search for yourself. Do a little primary research of your own. You will see that BLS employees have made contributions to both Democratic and Republican organizations, including for candidates. Welch is grasping at straws.

Lending any credence to this theory is exactly the WRONG thing for the Romney campaign to do.

Of course you don't want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy and his failures. Thats the last thing you want to happen.

Way to assume my beliefs. Do me a favor and point out any post I have made in support of Obama.

I happen to want Obama out of the White House, and that is not going to be helped by lending any credence to crackpots who desperately grasp at easily debunked premises to support extraordinary claims. Romney is better off not stooping to such depths.

Something has happened to the Republican party, my party, that I don't much care for. The Tea Party movement, which was initially non-partisan, and which I had no fundamental beef with, was suddenly invaded by far right nut bars after the 2008 election and essentially got hijacked by the GOP to exploit votes. The damage this has caused the GOP is extreme. The party of reason and sensible fiscal policy has now become the party of conspiracy nuts, and the Democrats are shooting at fish in a barrel.

Well do you want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Of course you don't want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy and his failures. Thats the last thing you want to happen.

Way to assume my beliefs. Do me a favor and point out any post I have made in support of Obama.

I happen to want Obama out of the White House, and that is not going to be helped by lending any credence to crackpots who desperately grasp at easily debunked premises to support extraordinary claims. Romney is better off not stooping to such depths.

Something has happened to the Republican party, my party, that I don't much care for. The Tea Party movement, which was initially non-partisan, and which I had no fundamental beef with, was suddenly invaded by far right nut bars after the 2008 election and essentially got hijacked by the GOP to exploit votes. The damage this has caused the GOP is extreme. The party of reason and sensible fiscal policy has now become the party of conspiracy nuts, and the Democrats are shooting at fish in a barrel.

Well do you want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy?

Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.

Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.

Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Way to assume my beliefs. Do me a favor and point out any post I have made in support of Obama.

I happen to want Obama out of the White House, and that is not going to be helped by lending any credence to crackpots who desperately grasp at easily debunked premises to support extraordinary claims. Romney is better off not stooping to such depths.

Something has happened to the Republican party, my party, that I don't much care for. The Tea Party movement, which was initially non-partisan, and which I had no fundamental beef with, was suddenly invaded by far right nut bars after the 2008 election and essentially got hijacked by the GOP to exploit votes. The damage this has caused the GOP is extreme. The party of reason and sensible fiscal policy has now become the party of conspiracy nuts, and the Democrats are shooting at fish in a barrel.

Well do you want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy?

Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.

Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.

Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.

The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Apparently, some of the people at the BLS (the org that is rigging employment data); are donating the Obama campaign.

http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

You simpleton. You're article lists two economists, one of whom doesn't even work for BLS anymore. You really ought to splurge and get a better quality tin foil for your beanie.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Well do you want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy?

Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.

Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.

Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.

The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.

You live in America, asswipe. Don't you think you ought to learn the English language?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.

Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.

Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.

The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.

You live in America, asswipe. Don't you think you ought to learn the English language?

You have a comprehension problem understanding basic English, maybe that's your problem.

 

[JimH52]

Three posts, all defensive responses to a mainly informative OP. Interesting.

It wasn't informative, it was stoopid.

There are over 2,500 employees at the BLS. The idiot blogger found one that actually still works there that contributed to Obama. There were two others found that contributed to Republicans.

It's meaningless and breathtakingly retarded to think a single employee in 2,500 can have an affect on the numbers because he tossed some bucks to a democrat or a republican.

The Thread is a LIE, which makes sense. Their leader, Mitt Romney has proven he is the King of Debate Liars.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Three posts, all defensive responses to a mainly informative OP. Interesting.

It wasn't informative, it was stoopid.

There are over 2,500 employees at the BLS. The idiot blogger found one that actually still works there that contributed to Obama. There were two others found that contributed to Republicans.

It's meaningless and breathtakingly retarded to think a single employee in 2,500 can have an affect on the numbers because he tossed some bucks to a democrat or a republican.

The Thread is a LIE, which makes sense. Their leader, Mitt Romney has proven he is the King of Debate Liars.

The above post is a lie.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Well do you want Romney to talk about obama's economic policy?

Sure, I just don't want him suggesting the BLS is politically manipulated and looking like a fool.

Personally, I would prefer he stick to making promises of things he can actually do. TheGreatGatsby has told me more than once that he believes the President has consistently profound influence over the performance of the economy, while I know, and any economist knows, that presidents rarely do. However, Obama has had one issue over the course of his term that Romney would do well to point out. Obama HAS contributed to a slower recovery, through the uncertainty of Obamacare. It is not an enormous contribution, presidents never make enormous impacts on the economy, but it is an important sticking point. Part of the reason businesses are not growing like we would like them to is because of the uncertainty of how they will provide healthcare to their employees. Uncertainty inhibits growth, and this would be Romney's strongest thing to focus on: uncertainty.

Ultimately, if he wins he won't have much control over the economy either. It is far too big a thing for any president to control. But if he wants to win, that's what I think he should focus on.

The only way you can justify your argument is show who worked at the BLS when Bush was president and if they work their now.

I don't follow you. What would that establish?

I don't have to justify any argument, because I'm not even making an argument. Conspiracy theorists are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim is that the most recent unemployment report, that just happens to coincide with a recent Presidential debate (big conspiracy theory red flag), was politically manipulated by the current administration to show a false unemployment record.

That is an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that the BLS report is accurate, but I AM saying that it is no more or less accurate than any previous BLS report on unemployment. TheGreatGatsby used a premise that the BLS is known for working last minute, or having shoddy methodologies, or something along those lines (I think I'm at least in the ballpark), and if that's the case, then those methodologies have always been in place and doesn't that prove me case even more? It is a ridiculous claim, and like all ridiculous claims, it should be ridiculed. The only two premises are that the report happened two days after a debate, and that a couple of BLS employees made small campaign contributions and that it constitutes a conflict of interest. You'd have better luck supporting an elephant with 10-pound test fishing line than you would supporting this claim with those premises.

Whatever. This is all probably just wasted words on my part, but I enjoy it nonetheless.