Labor Secretary Hilda Solis lied about today's unemployment numbers

The labor numbers don't add up. The labor department claims the unemployment number just fell faster in September than it has in the last 30 years.
But the actual numbers gained is relatively small. It makes no sense and they know it.

Watch this video.
Very odd behavior to say the least.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis acts normal until she begin to answer the question about today's labor report being cooked up.

Then she begins to blink rapidly and constantly. Watch it. Very strange!

The psychology and crime site, a self described place to collate information of interest in a forensic psychological context,
here: http://deception.crimepsychblog.com/?p=134
says the following:

Now what the video. Extremely strang behavior while claiming she's not lying to the American people. She begins to answer the question around the 42 second mark.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jobs-report-met-skepticism_653731.html

If you believe the unemployment rate in this country just fell faster than it has in last 30 years, then we can't even have a rational conversation with you. :dejection:

 

Its Bushs fault

 

The unemloyment number are calculated from 2 different DOL surveys.
(..and we aren't even talking about the fact that this administration decided to stop counting the chronically unemployed. That overall number is still 14%)

One of the surveys is a very large survey, and pretty accurate.
The other is a relatively small survey, and easy to stop when you get the answer you want.
The Secretary of labor, although insulted by the charges, did not do that survey herself.
Gee! What a coincidence! :heart-borken:
But, for those unemployed, I hope it is true.

Anybody remember a lot od OMB and DOL statistics that end up significantly corrected 2 months later???

 

You fellas looking for work?

 

Nope, but heard you were.

 

Too busy watching cow turds dry.
Are yours done yet?

 

Less than 115,000 jobs were added in September. That doesn't even keep up with population growth.
There is no possible way the employement rate is 7.8% with that number.
The number will be correct and adjusted upward to over 8% .... after the election.

edit: I'll add that there have only been three months this year we added fewer jobs than we did in September (highlighted in bold)
Every other month this year we've added more jobs.

September:114,000 jobs were added.
August:96,000 jobs were added
July:163,000 jobs added
June:80,000 jobs added
May: 65,000 jobs added
April: 115,000 jobs added
March: 120,000 jobs added
February: 227,000 jobs added
January: 243,000 jobs added

 

August and July were both revised higher so your numbers are wrong as any halfway decent research would have revealed.

 

Please share, what were they?

 

at some point before Obama, they changed the way the unemployment numbers were counted

it's based on the number of people getting unemployment, isn't it?

 

It is. That is why people have questions. When 114,000 new jobs are created in a month, but unemployed claims decreased by 456,000 (with total employment raising by 873,000) it raises eyebrows. As is usually the case, it is more complicated than just that. It is dry reading but the official release is here:

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

To me, the most interesting number is the increase of 600,000 "involuntary part-time" employees. Regardless, the numbers are odd but nothing more than that IMO.

 

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
+141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to
+142,000.

 

BTW I am not saying you are wrong in this. I read the increases on cnn and yahoo today and the methodology predates this administration supposedly. As with all things and politics the truth is hard to discern.

 

The unemployment drop came from a magical 800,000 people who said they are now self-employed or working from home. In other words....no possible way to verify those numbers.

Of course these numbers are bogus. Does anybody really believe any of the statistics put out by the government. Remember they claim there has only been 2% or less inflation a year for the past 20 years.

 

people could be picking up seasonal jobs for the holidays? i do have recruiters bombarding me all the time. it doesn't seem all that bad out there to me...

 

Seasonal adjustments are often required (and disclosed when they are) but September is too early for that type of swing. I don't have an answer, by the way. I was just surprised at how high it was in September.

 

Meet the Obama Donors at the BLS
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 5, 2012 1:28 pm

At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama’s campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. During his time at BLS, Harley has published a number of papers including his most recent, “How to Think About Time-Use Data: What Inferences Can We Make About Long- and Short-Run Time Use from Time Diaries?”

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. Phillips was responsible for examining the impact of Obamacare on Healthcare North American Industry Classification System indices. Phillips was also assistant coach for a girls’ high school tennis team in 2010.

 

See, I Told You So: Regime Manipulates the Jobless Number Below 8% by Election Day
Rush Limbaugh October 05, 2012


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There you have it, folks. The economy's back. The stimulus worked. The job council's programs all worked. Obamacare worked. Look at all the jobs, 114,000 new jobs created, and as I told you last December, this would happen. The unemployment rate under 8%. It's 7.9, but it doesn't matter, 7.8, 7.9, whatever's after the decimal point doesn't matter. It's the seven that matters, and the reason it does is that no incumbent president has ever been reelected with the unemployment rate over 8%. It's that simple.

 

He was going to be reelected regardless. Rush is simply stirring up folks like you so that he earns his money. There are plenty of people on both sides that do that. Ed Schultz on the "left" is an example of a pseudo-liberal. People play to their own self-interest.

 

But this should matter and what Romney said in the debate shouldn't because it's OK if he misrepresents himself or changes his entire campaign a Month before the election because he's the nominee now.

Erick Erickson: I don't think it is helpful or healthy for the GOP to argue that both polling and job numbers are cooked.