Trump's America

[zoogs]

Steve King is an inveterate racist.

 

 

He should come out as one.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

Now we've stooped so low as to accuse the Bureau of Labor Statistics of fudging the numbers. This sets the precedent for lying about any negative numbers they release, or firing any employees (if possible) who find anything negative.

 

FYI the commissioner of the BLS from 2013-2017 was unanimously sworn in by the senate. I wonder if the next person will even know what a statistic is.

 

President Trump's budget director claims the Obama administration was "manipulating" jobs data.

 

Mick Mulvaney told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that he has long thought the previous administration framed data to make the unemployment rate "look smaller than it actually was."

 

"What you should really look at is the number of jobs created," Mulvaney said on "State of the Union." "We've thought for a long time, I did, that the Obama administration was manipulating the numbers, in terms of the number of people in the workforce, to make the unemployment rate -- that percentage rate -- look smaller than it actually was."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/12/news/economy/mick-mulvaney-obama-jobs-data/index.html

 

 

This puts people in the position of either believing everything the Trump admin says is true or everything they say is a lie. Convincing people that all of the different organizations have become politicized is a great step to take if you plan on taking over the government permanently. It forces your supporters to get all of their information from you and you alone. They're creating their own version of reality.

While I agree with your intent, measuring unemployment and the politics associated with that measure have a long history: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-10/what-s-really-wrong-with-the-unemployment-rate

None of what I read in that article is remotely close to saying the BLS is lying about the numbers. Tweaking survey methodology to consider people who are looking for jobs or not is not similar to an accusation that the previous president/party lied and changed the numbers. You downplayed something similar before (I don't recall the topic - maybe $ in politics, or corporations in politics) and while I hate to use over-used phrases/words, it's just another way of normalizing what is happening now to try to feel better about it, imo. This is not normal. This is not just like how it's always been. This is/should be concerning.

 

 

Here is an article I read this morning after I posted, on the same topic. It is essentially about how the BLS has always been considered neutral/independent.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bna.com/trump-upend-agency-n73014447788/%3Famp%3Dtrue

Claiming the numbers have been manipulated has happened before, from the article I linked: "that didnt stop Readers Digest from alleging in 1961 that the government was including discouraged workers to boost the unemployment rate". Turns out it wasn't true. The article clearly makes the distinction between the numbers being a "big lie" and taking them with a grain of salt.

 

I'm trying to give some historical context for your remarks. In order to claim that what's happening now is not normal, you have to set a baseline of what "normal" is for a given context. There are a lot of links in that article for people to look into the issue themselves.

You're now equating a Reader's Digest allegation to Trump and his administration saying Obama fudged the numbers. Again, these are hardly similar and the former did not set a precedent for what is happening now. If you actually have evidence that what's happening now is normal then I will give you kudos but thus far that hasn't happened.

 

My baseline for what's normal is that this hasn't happened before, and nothing you've said has changed my mind on that. From my knowledge and from what I've learned from your responses, nothing like this has happened. We haven't to my knowledge ever had a president and his administration publicly state that the previous president and the BLS manipulated/fudged the results. We have never to my knowledge have an admin say the BLS was lying.

 

Changing survey methodology is not anywhere in the same ballpark. That is a legitimate thing to do as long as there is theory to back it up. If you read the survey Trump's team posted on his website, it flies completely in the face of what is taught in survey research 101. (E.g. Leading questions and telling certain people to participate). Also, stats is still a changing field to this day due to technology so changes to surveys in the 60s/70s don't stand out as automatically being a corrupt/misleading.

 

I'm doing a poor job of explaining myself. I'm trying to draw a distinction between challenging the BLS numbers (which isn't new) and that it's coming from the administration (which is new).

 

And I wanted to give anyone interested a link to learn about the history of where the numbers actually come from.

[BigRedBuster]

This is interesting.

 

[BigRedBuster]

[knapplc]

Democrats circa 2013: Oh, shutting down the government is the worst thing ever! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Whaaaah!

 

Democrats circa 2017: I think shutting the government down is a reasonable and viable option of good governance.

 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ZRod]

The Republicans opened up Pandora's box with the shutdown, and refusal to compromise. I hope the Dems are better than this, but they almost can't be blamed now...

[commando]

we need to dump both parties and get a more centrist group in there. the far left and far right are both doing their best to tear the country apart.

[Whistlebritches]

Did the Republicans pay any kind of a political price for the government shutdown? Ted Cruz certainly didn't. I'm not suggesting that Schumer should go through with his threat but 18 months from now will the voters even care?

[NM11046]

It might be a stretch, but one could say that R's paid the price by having a unqualified sleeper candidate come sweep the primaries and win the election.

[ZRod]

It might be a stretch, but one could say that R's paid the price by having a unqualified sleeper candidate come sweep the primaries and win the election.

And yet he's doing their biding, and they control the legislative branch as well. Seems like a win win to me.

[zoogs]

Democrats circa 2013: Oh, shutting down the government is the worst thing ever! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Whaaaah!

 

Democrats circa 2017: I think shutting the government down is a reasonable and viable option of good governance.

 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One was over ACA funding.

 

One (would be) over possibilities such as the border wall, defunding Planned Parenthood, a deportation force, or gutting the EPA.

 

If political tactics are equally outrageous regardless of circumstance, then we don't have tools to stop stuff like this. Not that the fact that this is how negotiating happens isn't exasperating.

[ZRod]

The modern Republican party negotiates?

[BigRedBuster]

 

Democrats circa 2013: Oh, shutting down the government is the worst thing ever! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Whaaaah!

 

Democrats circa 2017: I think shutting the government down is a reasonable and viable option of good governance.

 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One was over ACA funding.

 

One (would be) over possibilities such as the border wall, defunding Planned Parenthood, a deportation force, or gutting the EPA.

 

If political tactics are equally outrageous regardless of circumstance, then we don't have tools to stop stuff like this. Not that the fact that this is how negotiating happens isn't exasperating.

 

Far be it for me to defend either party.

 

But, when people ridiculed the Republican Party for shutting down the government, they didn't say...."Well, it's the reasons they are doing it that's bad."

[zoogs]

Really? I suppose I don't remember anymore.

 

I mean, if Obama were about to defund Planned Parenthood I would've probably sided with the GOP efforts. If it were over his drone war likewise (at least given my current views on it).

 

The fact that this was yet another expression of their anti-ACA tactics was I thought rather central to the ridicule. "They hate the idea of helping people get on healthcare this much, huh."

 

Again, the entire issue with the years of Republican intransigence is that it was all over the ACA. The idea should not be that Congress should play nice with the President regardless of who he is or what he is trying to do. If it is, that has horrifying implications for the next (?) years.

[Apathy]

Hahahaha