Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now if Republicans can just back off social issues they'll have an easy chance to win in 2014 and 2016..let's hope they have the common sense to do so this time.
Australia sounds worse. LOL
quote:
The exception is in places like Australia where the real IDU (International Definition of Unemployment) rate is approx 28% and the declared rate is approx 4%. In this instance the actual definition of unemployment was altered in 1974 to ignore 1) anyone who had a wife who worked 2) anyone who had money in the bank and 3) anyone who worked more than 2 hours a week in part-time work. The ACTU measured Australian jobs in 2010 and observed that 40% of jobs Australia wide were casual or part-time.
B-b-b-b-b-but they have a $15/hour minimum wage!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
... I used to think you were one of the few intellectually honest Conservatives on here.
According to YOU, since Nixon, there has been a tier of the UE rate that is counts less than every able-bodied person that isn't working?
And according to YOU, Obama has done nothing to change that tier since Clinton?
So when I say that every President since Nixon has used the same tier (U3), please explain how that's deflecting, dodging, and fabricating you pseudo-intellectual fraud.
But then again, you're one of these weird posters that thinks you're above having to defend your posts, so I'm not actually expecting a reply.
I always defend my posts, unless someone responds with drivel.
This has been discussed ad nauseum ad infinitum on numerous threads.
The thread topic is "Unemployment Rate Scandal"
A direct response to the thread does not require a recitation of what Millard Fillmore did during his presidency, or what Nixon did, or what any other president did or anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Regardless of what changes were made to the U3 rate, it's still not the full count of every unemployed person in the country.
Still trying to deflect and dodge the issue.
The thread topic is "Unemployment Rate Scandal"
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Every President has used the same tier of less-than-full-accounting of every unemployed person in America. And Obama is using the same one Clinton and Bush used.
The thread topic is "Unemployment Rate Scandal"
That is intellectually dishonest, since the definition has changed.
If you have a blue BMW and you paint it red, it is still a BMW, but it is no longer blue in color.
In case you forgotten, I'll remind you that Obama campaigned on Hope and Change and Transparency.
Nothing has changed, in fact politically things are worse in Washington than they ever have been, and there is Zero transparency in this Administration.
The scandal is relevant to Change and Transparency.
Seeing how you don't understand how insurance works, I guess it would be asking too much to expect you to understand how unemployment data is collected, and you proved that by cutting-and-pasting a bunch of irrelevant statements from BLS that have no bearing on the issue.
For those who do not understand the issue, I will explain it again for the umpteenth time.
'LNU01000000: '(Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level ('Civilian labor force 16 years and over).
That is the basis on which the UE Rate is determined.
From the Truman Administration through the Carter Administration, the Civilian Labor Force included prisoners in all county, State and federal prisons, while simultaneously counting prisoners as "Unemployed."
Active-duty military personnel were not included, yet counted as "Unemployed."
Since that skews the Unemployment Rate, the Carter Administration justifiably sought to change that to exclude prisoners, but include military members. The only change that was made was excluding prisoners entirely from the count, including eliminating prisoners from 'LNU00000000 which then became known as the "Civilian non-Institutional Population."
The Reagan Administration was successful in rectifying the change to military, which now counts all active-duty military members as "Employed" instead of stupidly counting them as "Unemployed."
Major changes occurred during the Clinton Administration.
1] You're "Unemployed" only if you are not working but have looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey. If you looked for work 6 weeks prior to the survey, then you are ignored.
That reduced the number of "Unemployed"
2] The survey size was decreased from 60,000 households to 50,000 households.
How we determine if people are in the Labor Force or not, and how we determine if people are Unemployed or not, gives us the UE Rate
Unemployed / Labor Force = UE Rate
10,773,000 / 154,918,000 = 0.6954 = 7.0%
Reducing the number of Unemployed, or reducing the size of the Labor Force, or both, yields a lower UE Rate.
What we want to know is did the actions of the Census Bureau employees cause a reduction in the number of Unemployed, or the Labor Force, or both, and we don't really give a damn if Nixon had a dog named Checkers.
Lying, deceit, fraud, abuse, are all systemic in Obama's admin
Looks like the our government is rotting from the head down. There definitely seems to be a systemic rot of lying, fraud, deceit, corruption, and abuse of power, all throughout the Obama administration. Yes sir, Obama is historic, this admin and this man will go down in the history books in the chapters of what to avoid, what not to do, and lesson learned the hard way, and asterisked with *the beginning of the end for modern day liberalism.
If the falsified unemployment data reported by Julius Buckmon for Sept 2012 was "significant" in any way, then wouldn't the monthly number have jumped right back up in the months that followed?
That's a good question.
If we look at 'LNU04000000 (Unadj) Unemployment Rate we find....
8.4 June 2012
8.6 July 2012
8.2 August 2012
7.6 September 2012
7.5 October 2012
7.4 November 2012
7.6 December 2012
8.5 January 2013
8.1 February 2013
7.6 March 2013
7.1 April 2013
7.3 May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
As you can see above, the unemployment rate remained within .1 percentage points of the September 2012 number in the months that followed, and continued to drop.
The Adjusted data does not reflect reality, and is based on the Unadjusted data I've provided here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Also, based on the NY Post Article, it sounds like the Census worker was being asked by his manager to fill in "fabricated" info just to meet the 90% quota that was required by him.
That's disturbing.
If the target survey number is 60,000 and the goal is only 90% then the actual survey number is only 54,000.
I'd be interested in knowing what the goal was when the survey was only 50,000, because if it was 90%, then the survey would only be 45,000.
Increasing the survey number increases the accuracy of the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
It also doesn't sound like he fabricated many people.
60,000 people are used in the survey.
And compared to the 60,000 only a little more than 12 instances of falsification were reported by Buckmon:
That's not the point.
The point is Buckmon claims he was told to falsify data by a manager/supervisor, and he did.
1] Buckmon should be terminated for either failing to report the actions of his supervisor or complying with the manager's demands and falsifying data.
2] The manager should be terminated.
3] What policies or culture exists in the Census Bureau that would result in the possibility that a manager would ask employees to falsify data?
Do managers receive financial or other incentives to reach the target goal of 90%?
Why?
4] How many other employees were involved?
5] How many other managers were involved?
6] If the actions of the manager were coerced in part by the policies of the Census Bureau, or the culture in the Census Bureau (eg a culture of fear and threats), then are there other agencies or offices in the government that use the same policies, or have the same culture?
Because if so, it needs to be eradicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Buckmon was also not told on how to fill in answers for these falsified people:
So his "fabricated" responses could have made the unemployment rate go either higher OR lower.
A distinct possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
But since the number of fabricated responses was so incredibly small (around 12 out of 60,000), it's doubtful that it had ANY affect at all.
I have no interest in "doubtful."
This is the united States government, not Fred's Fishe Frye Shoppe.
Taxpayers want answers, and "doubtful" doesn't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
This sounds more like an issue concerning specific workers in the Census Department who need to be disciplined for their actions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or his administration.
Perhaps, but Obama and his Administration's complete lack of transparency and honesty has brought this upon himself, so he has no one to blame but himself if he doesn't like accusations flying about.
I always defend my posts, unless someone responds with drivel.
This has been discussed ad nauseum ad infinitum on numerous threads.
The thread topic is "Unemployment Rate Scandal"
A direct response to the thread does not require a recitation of what Millard Fillmore did during his presidency, or what Nixon did, or what any other president did or anything else.
Still trying to deflect and dodge the issue.
The thread topic is "Unemployment Rate Scandal"
The thread topic is "Unemployment Rate Scandal"
That is intellectually dishonest, since the definition has changed.
If you have a blue BMW and you paint it red, it is still a BMW, but it is no longer blue in color.
In case you forgotten, I'll remind you that Obama campaigned on Hope and Change and Transparency.
Nothing has changed, in fact politically things are worse in Washington than they ever have been, and there is Zero transparency in this Administration.
The scandal is relevant to Change and Transparency.
I made a mistake about the thread topic. My bad. That doesn't change the fact that you're trying to make an arbitrary distinction between the U3 rates over the years. It doesn't matter how it's calculated b/c the U3 rate is not supposed to measure all unemployed Americans. It's specifically designed to reflect the workforce and gets fine-tuned to meet that requirement.
That's like arguing the definition of "capital gains tax" is different b/c it uses a different tax rate.
Assume that the revelations surrounding the 2012 UE rate are validated and it is proved that the Obama admin manipulated the numbers before election as the NY Post reported.
At what point to the most principled democrats step and and renounce Obama?
Bush went rogue and many of us principled conservatives called him to the carpet. I couldn't support the guy; I wrote him a letter asking for my campaign contribution back. I wasn't going to vote for the other camp, but I didn't have to support him in 2004.
If the allegations from the BLS employees are true, and they changed the numbers at the request of the White House, will you at least admit he's a lying scum bucket? You don't have to alter your beliefs and ideology to take him to task. You can still believe in unicorns and rainbows. I think at a minimum, though, you could rebuke the guy.
is this the same NY Post that put the wrong Boston Bombers on their front page with the headline : "BAG MEN" ?
Yep, The Onion is a more credible source than the New York Post.
Not sure what could be produced as evidence for the description of this "scandal".
Maybe Anonymous will come to the rescue... LOL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... I used to think you were one of the few intellectually honest Conservatives on here. 
Lying, deceit, fraud, abuse, are all systemic in Obama's admin
