Obama manipulating numbers after debate performance

[Mark]

SEPT. EMPLOYMENT: +114,000...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718

Total employment 'highest one-month jump in 29 years'...
http://www.drudgereport.com/xx

Rate Plummets to 4.3% -- For Govt Workers...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/unemployment-rate-plummets-43-government-workers

SURPRISE: 7.8%
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html

Welch: Obama manipulating numbers after debate performance...
http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-obama-jobs-report-numbers-romney-2012-10

[Psalm 51:17]

I only saw like a few minutes of the debate - Obama had nothing but a "deer in the headlights"/"indifferent" look on his face, while Romney came off as your typical, sticking out like a sore thumb family member in a big family gathering who would talk his head off the entire time while the rest of the family members would take a back seat and be quiet.

Either way - neither candidate brought anything refreshing to the table.

With that being said - as the years have gone by recently, especially over the last 3+ years with Obama in office, the more I see this "data", the more it looks like the world is really being set up for the "strong delusion". The government has done one heck of a job manipulating these numbers. They've found a way to do so especially since Reagan was in office.

[Kilika]

I have no doubt they are playing with the numbers. No doubt at all.

[Psalm 51:17]

I have no doubt they are playing with the numbers. No doubt at all.

Also take into account that those who have GIVEN UP looking for work(after a certain period of time since their last employment, that is) are NOT included in the figures. Also not included in the unemployment figures are those, adults in particular, who are working low wage, part-time work.

So it wouldn't surprise me if this unemployment figure is "correct", per se, believe it or not - since Reagan, the federal government has done everything to re-adjust the calculations of all of the data. Prior to the 80's, I believe, for example, people who have given up looking for work were INCLUDED in this figure.

[Psalm 51:17]

SURPRISE: 7.8%
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html

Well, Yahoo news is calling it the "October Shocker".

So I guess we haven't seen the "October Surprise", yet.

[Mark]

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report

The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

rest: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Kilika]

I think the real jobs number is WAY higher, like in the 12-15+% range. Seems like everybody I talk to is connected directly with somebody who is unemployed, or severly underemployed.