Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Jack Welch: Obama Cooking the Books on Jobs
Friday, 05 Oct 2012 09:17 AM
By Forrest Jones

The U.S. economy added a net 114,000 jobs in September, while the unemployment rate fell to a surprisingly low 7.8 percent, a number former GE boss Jack Welch described as cooked up by the Obama administration.

The September jobs number brought the unemployment rate below 8 percent for the first time in about four years.

Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following three months of little change, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Editor's Note: Obama Donor Banned This Video But You Can Watch it Here

"Unbelievable jobs numbers ... these Chicago guys will do anything ... can't debate so change numbers," Welch said on his Twitter page, referring to President Barack Obama's performance in the first presidential debate earlier this week.

Other experts expressed similar surprise.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Jack Welch: Obama Cooking the Books on Jobs

CitadelGrad wrote:Given all of the other economic data and leading indicators that we've been seeing, I don't think there's much question that the unemployment report has been falsified.

CitadelGrad wrote:Given all of the other economic data and leading indicators that we've been seeing, I don't think there's much question that the unemployment report has been falsified.

OL FU wrote:I don't think they are "cooking the books" but the unemployment measurement most utilized during this downturn is meaningless. The underemployment number which is also reporting my the government but rarely mentioned by the press is the more meaningful number

andy7171 wrote:Doesn't the unemployment report always get revised up a week or so later, but just gets little reporting on the revision?
Gotta admit, my first though when seeing this headline online was "You've gotta be kidding me"

OL FU wrote:I don't think they are "cooking the books" but the unemployment measurement most utilized during this downturn is meaningless. The underemployment number which is also reporting my the government but rarely mentioned by the press is the more meaningful number

OL FU wrote:I don't think they are "cooking the books" but the unemployment measurement most utilized during this downturn is meaningless. The underemployment number which is also reporting my the government but rarely mentioned by the press is the more meaningful number

ASUG8 wrote:

OL FU wrote:I don't think they are "cooking the books" but the unemployment measurement most utilized during this downturn is meaningless. The underemployment number which is also reporting my the government but rarely mentioned by the press is the more meaningful number

Agreed, but you won't hear that number in any of Obama's talking points. It will only be the sudden miraculous reversal of fortune one month out from election day. And since the next debates are on foreign policy Romney won't even get to address it.

Grizalltheway wrote:

OL FU wrote:I don't think they are "cooking the books" but the unemployment measurement most utilized during this downturn is meaningless. The underemployment number which is also reporting my the government but rarely mentioned by the press is the more meaningful number

Now there's a reasoned, logical response. OL FU for GE CEO.

CitadelGrad wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Agreed, but you won't hear that number in any of Obama's talking points. It will only be the sudden miraculous reversal of fortune one month out from election day. And since the next debates are on foreign policy Romney won't even get to address it.

We have the Ryan vs. Biden debate coming in a few days. Do you really think Ryan is going to miss an opportunity to address this? I don't.

CitadelGrad wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Agreed, but you won't hear that number in any of Obama's talking points. It will only be the sudden miraculous reversal of fortune one month out from election day. And since the next debates are on foreign policy Romney won't even get to address it.

We have the Ryan vs. Biden debate coming in a few days. Do you really think Ryan is going to miss an opportunity to address this? I don't.

ASUG8 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
We have the Ryan vs. Biden debate coming in a few days. Do you really think Ryan is going to miss an opportunity to address this? I don't.

You'll have maybe 50% of the audience for the Presidential debates. I just don't think folks care too much about VP debates.

CitadelGrad wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
You'll have maybe 50% of the audience for the Presidential debates. I just don't think folks care too much about VP debates.

I think people will tune in for some comedy gold from the gaffe machine.

CitadelGrad wrote:U-1 through U-5 unemployment are all down ... but wait, what about U-6? These stupid govt. pukes don't even know how to cover their tracks.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

CitadelGrad wrote:

OL FU wrote:I don't think they are "cooking the books" but the unemployment measurement most utilized during this downturn is meaningless. The underemployment number which is also reporting my the government but rarely mentioned by the press is the more meaningful number

Sorry, but when you know that labor force participation is declining and you publish a .3% drop in the unemployment rate, then you are cooking the books. Lying through their teeth is another way of putting it.

OL FU wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Sorry, but when you know that labor force participation is declining and you publish a .3% drop in the unemployment rate, then you are cooking the books. Lying through their teeth is another way of putting it.

Isn't that the definition of the two different measurements. One includes those who left the labor force and one doesn't

CitadelGrad wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Isn't that the definition of the two different measurements. One includes those who left the labor force and one doesn't

It depends on which rate you are talking about. The U-3 rate is 7.8%. The U-6 rate is unchanged at 14.7%.

The U-3 rate decline is related to the household survey which showed an increase of 840,000 jobs. The much larger survey of businesses showed an increase of 114,000. The business survey numbers in July and August were much higher (190,000 and 160,000), yet didn't budget the U-3 rate from 8.1%. The question is how did a smaller increase of 114,000 move the U-3 rate down .3% when the labor force participation rate continued to decline?

If it isn't cooking the books, then I don't know what it is. Clearly, the household survey number is not valid, but it is the basis for the September decline in the U-3 rate.