US UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS
BELOW 8% ?

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
FOLLOWS ORDERS WELL

October 8, 2012 TPATH

October 8, 2012 TPATH - In the beginning of this year, Rush Limbaugh predicted the national unemployment number would drop below 8% this October.  All of us who love and admire Rush know he is not a world class economist.  And at the time he predicted this, there were no signs of the economy improving.  Yet, he hit it out of the park.  How did he do that?

He knew that Obama's policies were designed not to improve and grow the middle class or the economy, but to destroy it, and with the compliance of the media, blame Republicans and the free market.

What Rush is an expert on is history and leftist politicians.
Never in American politics has a sitting President been reelected with unemployment 8% or higher.  Who else knows this?  The person posing a "President of All the People", Obama.

Because the method and means the BLS use to crunch the numbers are kept under tight security, with just a few statistics revealed, they could very well have come up with any number the Obama demanded.  And they did.

Here are some facts that fly in the face of all common sense relating to this bogus report these sycophants hoisted upon the American people this week.

1. How many times during the last 4 years has the monthly unemployment number been adjusted the following month?
  Answer: Over 40 times.

2. How many times was the error in favor of Obama?
  Answer: Just about 100% of the time

3. The two top Labor Statistic people who are charged with putting out the final numbers donated the maximum amount to what candidate?
  Answer: Obama.

4. Economists agree that new jobs for any given month must total between 150,000 to 250,000 just to keep the unemployment rate from dropping.  How many new jobs were created in September?
  Answer: 114,000 (And the rate dropped to under 8%?).

5. What happens to the value of a quotient when the value of the dividend is reduced in relation to the divisor?
 Answer: The value drops ( As in from 8.2 to 7.8).

6. How many people have been removed from the equation calculating the number looking for work (the dividend) since the beginning of this year?
 Answer: 1,400,000 (that's people dropped and not counted).

7. It is a fact proven over and over again and agreed to by economists, that factory orders and production must rise in relationship to rising employment.  How much did that number increase during the period that BLS tells us employment rose?
 Answer:  It did not rise, it fell.

8. Everyone knows that "government jobs" produce no growth in the economy. Conversely, they add to the burden of the taxpayer and every dime of those new salaries has to be paid for, now or in the future, by those actually producing something.  If the government hired, let's say, 600,000 new employees over the last 3 months would that help the unemployment rate drop?
Answer: Ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

9. How many new government employees have been hired in the last 3 months?
 Answer: 600,000 (How convenient!)

10. What are are the chances that when the October unemployment statistics are released in November, just after the election, that the 7.2% rate for September will be adjusted to back over 8%?
 Answer: 100%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One more thing to ponder as we move towards November.  It is very easy to elect a Marxist, nearly impossible to vote him out.
Just ask the poor souls down in Venezuela.
Win, lose or draw, Chavez is not going anywhere.

ILLEGITIMATE JOBLESS REPORT OMITTED LARGEST STATE’S LABOR STATS

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY- The state of California has the largest population of any state in America. It has an economy which, if it were an independent nation, would rank in the top 10 in the world.

It also has one of the highest rates of unemployment in America, above 10%. In some counties in the state’s central agricultural region, unemployment is around 25%.

Considering these metrics, one would think it might be necessary for a federal government report on the national labor rate to include the Golden State.

One would think this, unless you are a democrat seeking re-election by padding job numbers to make it appear like your liberal economic policies are working when they are not.

After this week’s surprisingly positive jobless claims number was released, three things happened according to Business Insider.

1. Lots of people felt better about the economy

2. Democrats cheered because they thought the number would help Obama

3. Republicans seized on confusing reports that the numbers had "excluded claims from one large state" (probably California) and blasted the number as wrong and misleading.

Since then, the argument has raged on, and there have been a variety of different reports and interpretations. Well, we're glad to say that we've finally gotten to the bottom of what happened.

We spoke to a source at the Labor Department. According to this source, who is an analyst at the Department, here's what happened:

• ALL STATES WERE INCLUDED in this week's jobless claims. Assertions that "a large state" was excluded from the report are patently false.

However, dissenters are not saying California was excluded. They are saying that California did not provide its state labor statistics before the deadline required by the publisher of this particular report. Of course, California was not excluded. It was included and the number published was 0. Zero because California did not provide statistics. Here’s how economists explain:

• It is likely that some of the jobless claims in one large state--California--were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. This happens occasionally, our source says. When a state's jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL. The source believes that this is what happened this week.

• The California claims that were not processed in time to get into this week's jobless report will appear in future reports, most likely next week's or the following week's. In other words, those reports might be modestly higher than expected.

• The source believes that the number of California claims that were not processed totalled about 15,000-25,000. Thus, if one were to "normalize" the overall not-seasonally-adjusted jobless claims number, it would increase by about 15,000-25,000.

• This week's "normalized" jobless claims number, therefore, would be about 355,000-365,000, not the 339,000 that was reported. This compares to the 370,000 consensus expectation.

In other words, had all of California's jobless claims been processed in time to make the jobless-claims release, this jobless number would still have been better than economists were expecting--but not as much better as it appeared.

Again, the as-yet-unprocessed claims will appear in future reports. So next week's number may well be higher than expected.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

• Jobless claims were better than expected, even after adjusting for an unusual anomaly
• There was an unusual anomaly that made this week's jobless claims look better than they would otherwise have been.

Of course, there was a motive to create good news after Barack Obama's abysmal performance at the first 2012 presidential debate, just before the jobs reports came out. One way to do that is fake key economic indicators in favor of Obama.