BLS flatly denies political bias in unemployment numbers

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...no-conspiracy/

More conservative sour grapes (aka "lies") debunked. Move along, nothing to see here.

From the article. Note the first quote is from a Bush administration official....you remember, back from that time when Republicans were not insane?

1. "BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility," Tony Fratto, former deputy press secretary to President George W. Bush, wrote on Twitter.


2. Steve Haugen, an economist at the BLS who has been involved in the process of analyzing jobs data for nearly 30 years, flatly dismissed the idea that there was any way the White House or Obama campaign could have had a hand in how the numbers turned out.


3. "The data are not manipulated for political reasons. I've been involved in the process myself for almost three decades. There's never been any political manipulation of the data, period," Haugen told CBSNews.com.


4. According to Haugen, the BLS has been getting its data for the household survey -- the one on which the unemployment figure is based -- from the Census Bureau since 1942. The BLS took over the responsibility for analyzing the employment and unemployment data in 1959. And Haugen says that survey used in the data collection process has been largely the same since 1994. The BLS says the White House is not involved in the process of gathering or analyzing data, and does not give directives on the collection, production, dissemination of data.


5. Asked directly if the Obama administration or the White House had directed the BLS to change its methodology in some way to make the numbers more favorable to the president, Haugen said "no."


6. In fact, the BLS says it does not at the moment have a single political appointee working in the entire agency.

Haugen is a communist undercover agent secretely working for the Obama campaign team

or soon will be if you get my drift ..

Haugen is a communist undercover agent secretely working for the Obama campaign team

or soon will be if you get my drift .. Originally Posted by CJ7

Do tell? Well, I stand corrected. Must be all that Kool Aid I've been drinking.....

Do tell? Well, I stand corrected. Must be all that Kool Aid I've been drinking..... Originally Posted by timpage

it will be when Joe shows up

Haugen is a communist undercover agent secretely working for the Obama campaign team

or soon will be if you get my drift .. Originally Posted by CJ7

According to old man dumbass JD, so am I! LOL

For all of your, hootin', tootin' and polluting, Little Timmy, the numbers could still be wrong. "The BLS household survey is, well, a survey, which means it’s open to error."

And the Obamazombies believe the BLS numbers because ????????????

We know they cooked the books on the Solyndra deal; why not the BLS data ?

And the Obamazombies believe the BLS numbers because ????????????

We know they cooked the books on the Solyndra deal; why not the BLS data ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Good old Whirly. He has emerged from his bed, where recent poll numbers had reduced him to a thumb-sucking weenie curled into the fetal position, whimpering "The numbers are wrong, wrong, wrong....." All thanks to one little debate. Welcome back numbnuts.

For all of your, hootin', tootin' and polluting, Little Timmy, the numbers could still be wrong. "The BLS household survey is, well, a survey, which means it’s open to error." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That is true. What is not true, and what is the point of the post, is that the repuke' allegations that the BLS statistics are the result of political bias or meddling with the numbers by the White House is a bald-faced lie. And everybody knows it except the obviously brain-dead like Whirly.

It's the typical GOP strategy. Throw it out there, repeat it over and over in the echo chamber of the conservative entertainment industry and maybe, just maybe... enough voters will believe it. Perfectly acceptable strategy so long as you are willing to go along with an absolute calculated lie which has no factual support whatsoever. It's not spin...it's lying. Normal for the GOP and their candidate.

And now, confirmation from the official spokesman of the BLS:

I commented on this issue in another thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=27

I did not (and will not) claim bias on the part of BLS data compilers.

Rather, I just noted that the "headline" number will be spun in a misleading way, since it now has a 7-handle.

I also noted that the only important numbers are the 114K NFP print and the U-6 number, which remains unchanged at 14.7%.

Against the backdrop of recoveries during the 1980s and 1990s, it's impossible to credibly present today's report as good news, or anything even remotely approaching confirmation that we're enjoying a healthy "recovery."

And now, confirmation from the official spokesman of the BLS: Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Whirly has company in the brain-dead category.

I commented on this issue in another thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=27

I did not (and will not) claim bias on the part of BLS data compilers.

Rather, I just noted that the "headline" number will be spun in a misleading way, since it now has a 7-handle.

I also noted that the only important numbers are the 114K NFP print and the U-6 number, which remains unchanged at 14.7%.

Against the backdrop of recoveries during the 1980s and 1990s, it's impossible to credibly present today's report as good news, or anything even remotely approaching confirmation that we're enjoying a healthy "recovery." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Quiet true. . . but your approach just didn't lend itself to a good photoshopping! ;-)

Have a good weekend cap'n

In 2000 the BLS used September numbers for October ..

..... the correction for October will not come out after the elections ....

Snake Oil.

In 2000 the AFL-CIO went ballistic over the down playing of the job losses going into the fall. The union numbers were increasing in October-December, but the BLS was flat.

Clinton-Gore were claiming no downturn in the economy and Clinton went "crazy" when Chaney said in late December on national TV that the first task they had was addressing the recession that was developing ... about a year later it was accepted by just about all knowledgeable economists that the downturn began in March-April of 2000.

Obaminable needed sometime to distract from his incompetent performance ... he lied about the ambassador ... his credibility is shot.

The fundamental question: What jobs?