PLEASE HELP ME! Neal Boortz is saying that President Obama changed the way unemployment is calculated, but it's not true! He keeps repeating this non-fact and never offers ANY EVIDENCE OR SOURCE! I remember clearly that 20 or so years ago there was a change in the formula so that it now excludes people who have run out of unemployment benefits and quit looking...BUT that was over 20 years ago. That change was not made by Obama and it's just awful and immoral for Neal to keep saying this!
Here is his contact info...http://www.boortz.com/
And Neal, why doesn't the Wall Street Journal agree with you?
BY JOSH MITCHELL AND ERIC MORATH-WSJ
WASHINGTON—U.S. job creation remained solid in February and was stronger in previous months than initially thought, marking one of the economy's best stretches of the nearly three-year-old recovery.
Jobs outside of agriculture grew by 227,000 last month, the Labor Department said Friday. Meanwhile, employers added 284,000 jobs in January—roughly 40,000 higher than an initial estimate—and job creation was also revised higher for December.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/os_legacy_unemployment_rate_now_meaningless.html#ixzz1oem1ubH7
ReplyDeleteHERE IS YOUR ANSWER! Neal Boortz, American Thinker, and others are CORRECT. In January, 1.2 million people "left" the labor pool. Just vaporized. Therefore, the # of unemployed relative to the Total # in the labor pool, looked a lot higher. They didn't really vaporize. The Bureaucrats just decided to stop counting them. Because it makes things look a LOT nicer than they really are.
DeleteThe article you posted is nonsensical trash. NOBODY WITH ANY CRED AGREES WITH THIS JUNK. Not the Wall Street Journal nor the Washington Time or any conservative economist or MEMBER OF CONGRESS...NONE OF THEM are saying that this jobs # was calculated any differently than they were under Bush and Clinton. Ask Jamie Dupree or Brett Baier!
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it was calculated any differently. I'm saying one of the values/variables used to calculate is is being messed with. This is also what Boortz is saying. The 'Persons Not In Labor Force' jumped by 1.2 Million people, for some reason.
DeleteThe White House fully acknowledges this number. And their response is that it may be 'a positive' thing!!:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-people-leaving-workforce-economic-positive/360901
I have not fact checked this, but a more direct monkeying with the statistics is also alleged by Boortz:
"...up until the Obama administration the Labor Department largely depended on state governments for each state’s specific employment statistics? Obama decided that this function should be removed from the states and centralized under his administrative guidance. Now here’s a guy who went from “jobs created” to “jobs created or saved” as he tried to convince the American people that his stimulus plan was working … and now he finds it necessary to put the responsibility of developing unemployment figures in the White House? "
Jason From Georgia- good moniker
DeleteTo crystallize my point, I acknowledge the claims made by Boortz etc. and I am saying that we must have some more formal reference points for our analysis than a small number of very successful talk show hosts whose stated objective, as Rush says, is to "Draw the largest possible audience and charge confiscatory advertising rates"
I don't care how bad things may be, America is still 'the lord of the land' in terms of leading the world in the right direction. Even today, by the words of Obama's critics do you think that isn't true? Who is even second in leading the world?
We are the gold standard and I wish people would buy US Bonds instead of gold.
So, when all of our congress people and even conservative economists and newspapers like the Washington Times say that this jobs number is real and even Fox doesn't disagree (see Krauthammer) I say 'Ok' maybe we're on track. And you know what, Neal Boortz is lying when he says he's going to move from Florida to New Zealand.