Even the most basic of questions gets answered this way:
Yes, the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) job reports have faced scrutiny for inaccuracies. In the July 2025 report, the BLS announced that only 73,000 jobs were added, which was significantly lower than expected. More notably, they revised down the job numbers for May and June by a combined total of 258,000 jobs, marking one of the largest two-month revisions in recent history .
These revisions have raised concerns about the reliability of the BLS data, especially since they have a history of overestimating job growth.
Overall, while the BLS aims to provide accurate employment statistics, the recent revisions have led to questions about the agency's credibility and the implications for economic policy .
Even the most basic of questions gets answered this way:
Yes, the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) job reports have faced scrutiny for inaccuracies. In the July 2025 report, the BLS announced that only 73,000 jobs were added, which was significantly lower than expected. More notably, they revised down the job numbers for May and June by a combined total of 258,000 jobs, marking one of the largest two-month revisions in recent history .
These revisions have raised concerns about the reliability of the BLS data, especially since they have a history of overestimating job growth.
Overall, while the BLS aims to provide accurate employment statistics, the recent revisions have led to questions about the agency's credibility and the implications for economic policy .
@StumpTownStu Why are you stalking me to try and take another poke like you are? The thread is not closed to only his posts, I have no idea outside your partisan need to try and create drama why you made that reply. Of course I am the problem, you have to blame someone for all the misguided abuses you complain about instead of understanding the rules and why things happen here.
Stalking you? I was on the first page of this thread in January.Three years ago. I have always been a part of tbis threar. I have wanted to post the past few days but have been trying to avoid your constant abuse. You hijacked the thread and completely changed the subject. This exist for anyone to see. You belittled the op. This thread is about Kamala Harris.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@StumpTownStu Why are you stalking me to try and take another poke like you are? The thread is not closed to only his posts, I have no idea outside your partisan need to try and create drama why you made that reply. Of course I am the problem, you have to blame someone for all the misguided abuses you complain about instead of understanding the rules and why things happen here.
Stalking you? I was on the first page of this thread in January.Three years ago. I have always been a part of tbis threar. I have wanted to post the past few days but have been trying to avoid your constant abuse. You hijacked the thread and completely changed the subject. This exist for anyone to see. You belittled the op. This thread is about Kamala Harris.
I never waivered from my position, the numbers are not ON they are not OFF they were not MISSED they are not MADE. The BLS reported numbers from corporations, the projections are useless and the report is not final, there cannot be a miss or make when you are not the owner of the football.
So did I miss the kick since I reported that it happened? I missed the kick since I reported it so I am fired, that is Trump logic.
@Raiders22
I never waivered from my position, the numbers are not ON they are not OFF they were not MISSED they are not MADE. The BLS reported numbers from corporations, the projections are useless and the report is not final, there cannot be a miss or make when you are not the owner of the football.
So did I miss the kick since I reported that it happened? I missed the kick since I reported it so I am fired, that is Trump logic.
You can post to me, your intimidating aggressive blame messages wont offend me. Ive had much worse here than your messages so feel free to say what you like inside the rules of the site.
Replying inside a thread is not hijacking, coming into a thread and complaining about a MOD IS hijacking. Raiders and my discussion is not hijacking, he introduced a reply and I commented on it. I think our definition of hijacking is not the same.
@StumpTownStu
You can post to me, your intimidating aggressive blame messages wont offend me. Ive had much worse here than your messages so feel free to say what you like inside the rules of the site.
Replying inside a thread is not hijacking, coming into a thread and complaining about a MOD IS hijacking. Raiders and my discussion is not hijacking, he introduced a reply and I commented on it. I think our definition of hijacking is not the same.
Even the most basic of questions gets answered this way: Yes, the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) job reports have faced scrutiny for inaccuracies. In the July 2025 report, the BLS announced that only 73,000 jobs were added, which was significantly lower than expected. More notably, they revised down the job numbers for May and June by a combined total of 258,000 jobs, marking one of the largest two-month revisions in recent history . These revisions have raised concerns about the reliability of the BLS data, especially since they have a history of overestimating job growth. Overall, while the BLS aims to provide accurate employment statistics, the recent revisions have led to questions about the agency's credibility and the implications for economic policy .
You just made my point several times over with that message. The BLS REPORTS data they receive, they do not own the data. Revisions happen over and over it never ends because the nature of how surveys dribble in makes the reports inaccurate and revisions alter these reports. I suggested several times here that a better and more efficient use of this REPORT would be to have it quarterly flow month to month, that would even out the revisions and make it more accurate, have it be a floating three to four month report since month to month is incomplete and revisions happen no matter what.
The FED does not rely on this type of data it is flawed in so many ways I dont even know why it exists. The percent of participation is not sufficient, the dribble of surveys make revisions never ending. The BLS needs to change their reporting approach to even out and make the data they receive more complete and accurate.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Even the most basic of questions gets answered this way: Yes, the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) job reports have faced scrutiny for inaccuracies. In the July 2025 report, the BLS announced that only 73,000 jobs were added, which was significantly lower than expected. More notably, they revised down the job numbers for May and June by a combined total of 258,000 jobs, marking one of the largest two-month revisions in recent history . These revisions have raised concerns about the reliability of the BLS data, especially since they have a history of overestimating job growth. Overall, while the BLS aims to provide accurate employment statistics, the recent revisions have led to questions about the agency's credibility and the implications for economic policy .
You just made my point several times over with that message. The BLS REPORTS data they receive, they do not own the data. Revisions happen over and over it never ends because the nature of how surveys dribble in makes the reports inaccurate and revisions alter these reports. I suggested several times here that a better and more efficient use of this REPORT would be to have it quarterly flow month to month, that would even out the revisions and make it more accurate, have it be a floating three to four month report since month to month is incomplete and revisions happen no matter what.
The FED does not rely on this type of data it is flawed in so many ways I dont even know why it exists. The percent of participation is not sufficient, the dribble of surveys make revisions never ending. The BLS needs to change their reporting approach to even out and make the data they receive more complete and accurate.
My original post was that Cuban was wrong about the main reason that Harris lost.
Instead of hijacking this thread about this because everyone in economics and business agrees the numbers are off, we can move into an appropriate thread on it. I am about to take off on a flight. When I land I will simply start a thread about why she should have been fired. Then you can take it from there. Or you can start one on why she should keep her job.
@wallstreetcappers
My original post was that Cuban was wrong about the main reason that Harris lost.
Instead of hijacking this thread about this because everyone in economics and business agrees the numbers are off, we can move into an appropriate thread on it. I am about to take off on a flight. When I land I will simply start a thread about why she should have been fired. Then you can take it from there. Or you can start one on why she should keep her job.
@StumpTownStu You can post to me, your intimidating aggressive blame messages wont offend me. Ive had much worse here than your messages so feel free to say what you like inside the rules of the site. Replying inside a thread is not hijacking, coming into a thread and complaining about a MOD IS hijacking. Raiders and my discussion is not hijacking, he introduced a reply and I commented on it. I think our definition of hijacking is not the same.
This thread is about Kamala Harris. I point about stance on cryptocurrency affecting the electionv was introduced. What has followed has nothing to do with this thread. I was participant in this thread when it first started three and a half years ago. I was a participant when the current conversation started a little over a week ago. Yet you have the audacity to accuse me of stalking you. Were you not stalking Raiders? Don't you always? I have wanted to post in the past few days and have been avoiding this thread, of which I have been participant since the beginning, because of you. It's mind blowing to me that you i'm the problem, when there was no problem until you came.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@StumpTownStu You can post to me, your intimidating aggressive blame messages wont offend me. Ive had much worse here than your messages so feel free to say what you like inside the rules of the site. Replying inside a thread is not hijacking, coming into a thread and complaining about a MOD IS hijacking. Raiders and my discussion is not hijacking, he introduced a reply and I commented on it. I think our definition of hijacking is not the same.
This thread is about Kamala Harris. I point about stance on cryptocurrency affecting the electionv was introduced. What has followed has nothing to do with this thread. I was participant in this thread when it first started three and a half years ago. I was a participant when the current conversation started a little over a week ago. Yet you have the audacity to accuse me of stalking you. Were you not stalking Raiders? Don't you always? I have wanted to post in the past few days and have been avoiding this thread, of which I have been participant since the beginning, because of you. It's mind blowing to me that you i'm the problem, when there was no problem until you came.
Yessir. Simply to address you saying Harris would not fire her. I said she wouldn’t because she does not have that type of fortitude that is needed to make those decisions. People saw Harris as weak and indecisive. I agreed she would not have fired her. Then you simply tried to justify that she should not have been fired. So, start a thread on why she should not have been fired — by Biden, Trump, or Harris. That way we do not hijack a thread that is simply about Harris and not what she may or may not have done about this situation.
@wallstreetcappers
Yessir. Simply to address you saying Harris would not fire her. I said she wouldn’t because she does not have that type of fortitude that is needed to make those decisions. People saw Harris as weak and indecisive. I agreed she would not have fired her. Then you simply tried to justify that she should not have been fired. So, start a thread on why she should not have been fired — by Biden, Trump, or Harris. That way we do not hijack a thread that is simply about Harris and not what she may or may not have done about this situation.
Follow the flow Stump, go back to 335 and follow the flow. I do not stalk anyone but I will also be the last person to back down from aggressive posts like yours. Go back and follow the flow its right there for you to see.
Or just blame mod again..I think that is what you prefer to do.
@StumpTownStu
Follow the flow Stump, go back to 335 and follow the flow. I do not stalk anyone but I will also be the last person to back down from aggressive posts like yours. Go back and follow the flow its right there for you to see.
Or just blame mod again..I think that is what you prefer to do.
Bro, please stop so he goes away. This has been a ongoing thread about the shortcomings of then Vice President, eventual Presidential nominee, and now civilian, Kamala Harris. It is three and a half years old. It's become a debate on Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
@Raiders22
Bro, please stop so he goes away. This has been a ongoing thread about the shortcomings of then Vice President, eventual Presidential nominee, and now civilian, Kamala Harris. It is three and a half years old. It's become a debate on Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting.
So who hijacked then or was it that NOBODY hijacked and it was the flow of a discussion? Mugg the thread creator asked an OPEN question, I replied, YOU interjected and diverted the discussion. I do not consider a flow to be a hijack but I can promise you this you will not try and frame a narrative including me when it is wrong and biased.
Dont come at me and try to intimidate and play that game, you were wrong and there was no need for your reply or Stumps reply, no party in this thread did anything off and having a discussion is WHY this forum exists.
Less blame more discussion please.
@Raiders22
So who hijacked then or was it that NOBODY hijacked and it was the flow of a discussion? Mugg the thread creator asked an OPEN question, I replied, YOU interjected and diverted the discussion. I do not consider a flow to be a hijack but I can promise you this you will not try and frame a narrative including me when it is wrong and biased.
Dont come at me and try to intimidate and play that game, you were wrong and there was no need for your reply or Stumps reply, no party in this thread did anything off and having a discussion is WHY this forum exists.
@wallstreetcappers My posts aren't aggressive. You won't gaslight me.
So saying I gaslight you is what exactly? Why the need to try and suggest something completely false? If you do not like the content of any thread I strongly suggest you not read that thread...here or the NFL or the general section, nobody is forcing you to read a thread.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
@wallstreetcappers My posts aren't aggressive. You won't gaslight me.
So saying I gaslight you is what exactly? Why the need to try and suggest something completely false? If you do not like the content of any thread I strongly suggest you not read that thread...here or the NFL or the general section, nobody is forcing you to read a thread.
"I have no idea what you are even talking about, a failed draft pick? Not POTUS material? What does any of this have to do with the discussion we were having?"
Huh? It's THE point of the discussion.
Harris, who didn't make it past the first cut of the lib primary in 2020, was chosen by Biden to be veep. Then, when they couldn't hide Biden from the public anymore, she was chosen to be the lib candidate last year, sans any primary. She was an unremarkable Senator for only part of one term before being drafted by Biden. In what world does that make her POTUS material? There are tons of "public servants" out there.......giving that as a resume point doesn't mean a helluva lot in the context of whether one is capable of running a country or not.
@wallstreetcappers
"I have no idea what you are even talking about, a failed draft pick? Not POTUS material? What does any of this have to do with the discussion we were having?"
Huh? It's THE point of the discussion.
Harris, who didn't make it past the first cut of the lib primary in 2020, was chosen by Biden to be veep. Then, when they couldn't hide Biden from the public anymore, she was chosen to be the lib candidate last year, sans any primary. She was an unremarkable Senator for only part of one term before being drafted by Biden. In what world does that make her POTUS material? There are tons of "public servants" out there.......giving that as a resume point doesn't mean a helluva lot in the context of whether one is capable of running a country or not.
My comment was about what we were discussing above not the sole purpose of the thread, those are two different things. In a string of discussion if you ask something, I reply and then you reply back with something not relevant to the string then that was my intention. Nowhere did I suggest that the core purpose of the thread was not to bash Harris because Ive said the exact opposite, that is the purpose of the thread.
How about something on topic to your reply, what POTUS in our lifetime had more POTUS material prior to being POTUS vs Harris? I'd say Biden has the longest service in government prior to being POTUS but outside that I do not know of another POTUS who has more public service and experience in politics than Harris.
Bush I and II? No...similar but not more IMO
Clinton? No...he was Arkie gov
Reagan? No he was an actor who was a short term gov but not in federal position
Carter? No he was Georgia gov
Obama? No similar to Bush and Clinton and Carter, had mid experience but not MORE in my view
Trump? Ok I didnt even want to include him the answer is an obvious NO
So who in our lifetime has more experience in politics and is "material" more than Harris? Throw aside the hatred of Harris and that she is a DEM LIB whatever just stick to your contention of POTUS material, who has more experience?
@THEMUGG
My comment was about what we were discussing above not the sole purpose of the thread, those are two different things. In a string of discussion if you ask something, I reply and then you reply back with something not relevant to the string then that was my intention. Nowhere did I suggest that the core purpose of the thread was not to bash Harris because Ive said the exact opposite, that is the purpose of the thread.
How about something on topic to your reply, what POTUS in our lifetime had more POTUS material prior to being POTUS vs Harris? I'd say Biden has the longest service in government prior to being POTUS but outside that I do not know of another POTUS who has more public service and experience in politics than Harris.
Bush I and II? No...similar but not more IMO
Clinton? No...he was Arkie gov
Reagan? No he was an actor who was a short term gov but not in federal position
Carter? No he was Georgia gov
Obama? No similar to Bush and Clinton and Carter, had mid experience but not MORE in my view
Trump? Ok I didnt even want to include him the answer is an obvious NO
So who in our lifetime has more experience in politics and is "material" more than Harris? Throw aside the hatred of Harris and that she is a DEM LIB whatever just stick to your contention of POTUS material, who has more experience?
CIA is not congress esque politics, he had some experience prior to being on the Reagan team but I would not say a massive ammt more. Biden is by far the longest term politician prior to being POTUS, not sure that is a great thing as he was a lifer doing almost nothing in a cushy Delaware seat for too long.
Even with Bush that is a THIRTY plus year reach back to find someone who allegedly is suited to be POTUS. Not a Bush fan either one for reasons listed here before but just engaging in his discussion point about qualifying service time in politics.
@scooby-doos
CIA is not congress esque politics, he had some experience prior to being on the Reagan team but I would not say a massive ammt more. Biden is by far the longest term politician prior to being POTUS, not sure that is a great thing as he was a lifer doing almost nothing in a cushy Delaware seat for too long.
Even with Bush that is a THIRTY plus year reach back to find someone who allegedly is suited to be POTUS. Not a Bush fan either one for reasons listed here before but just engaging in his discussion point about qualifying service time in politics.
@Raiders22 So who hijacked then or was it that NOBODY hijacked and it was the flow of a discussion? Mugg the thread creator asked an OPEN question, I replied, YOU interjected and diverted the discussion. I do not consider a flow to be a hijack but I can promise you this you will not try and frame a narrative including me when it is wrong and biased. Dont come at me and try to intimidate and play that game, you were wrong and there was no need for your reply or Stumps reply, no party in this thread did anything off and having a discussion is WHY this forum exists. Less blame more discussion please.
Huh? I am not accusing you of hijacking it. I am just pointing out that the discussion I am trying to have with you is hijacking it from the original topic. Harris was the topic. My comment was that she did not lose mainly because of crypto. You said it was. Nobody but you and Cuban and a small anecdotal group agree with that.
You said to him that Harris would not have fired the lady. I agreed Harris would not have fired her, but because she is too weak to fire her even as bad as her numbers were off. You then said her numbers were not that far off. Then the discussion veered completely away from that and about you trying to justify the numbers being off without admitting they were off. So, you should not be ‘intimidated’ because you wanted to try to key in on that point. I was simply attempting to get you to see that the reason you have to justify your stance(s) is because the numbers are wrong to start with, along with other things that warranted her firing.
So, while it is the flow of the thread, it has been a long attempt to keep you focused on the initial point that everyone but you agrees on.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 So who hijacked then or was it that NOBODY hijacked and it was the flow of a discussion? Mugg the thread creator asked an OPEN question, I replied, YOU interjected and diverted the discussion. I do not consider a flow to be a hijack but I can promise you this you will not try and frame a narrative including me when it is wrong and biased. Dont come at me and try to intimidate and play that game, you were wrong and there was no need for your reply or Stumps reply, no party in this thread did anything off and having a discussion is WHY this forum exists. Less blame more discussion please.
Huh? I am not accusing you of hijacking it. I am just pointing out that the discussion I am trying to have with you is hijacking it from the original topic. Harris was the topic. My comment was that she did not lose mainly because of crypto. You said it was. Nobody but you and Cuban and a small anecdotal group agree with that.
You said to him that Harris would not have fired the lady. I agreed Harris would not have fired her, but because she is too weak to fire her even as bad as her numbers were off. You then said her numbers were not that far off. Then the discussion veered completely away from that and about you trying to justify the numbers being off without admitting they were off. So, you should not be ‘intimidated’ because you wanted to try to key in on that point. I was simply attempting to get you to see that the reason you have to justify your stance(s) is because the numbers are wrong to start with, along with other things that warranted her firing.
So, while it is the flow of the thread, it has been a long attempt to keep you focused on the initial point that everyone but you agrees on.
My point is that having experience as a "public servant" doesn't solely determine whether one is qualified to be potus. Biden is a good example.......TONS of experience, most of it unremarkable, serves as veep, & then turns out to be arguably the worst POTUS ever. It takes guts.....charisma......stamina.......the ability to think on your feet & make the hard decisions.....the ability to deal with tough customers on a 1/1 basis.
Bottom line.......I didn't choose Harris, Biden & the dems did, because either they felt the optics were more important than the job itself or they didn't have anyone better in the bullpen.......maybe both.
@wallstreetcappers
My point is that having experience as a "public servant" doesn't solely determine whether one is qualified to be potus. Biden is a good example.......TONS of experience, most of it unremarkable, serves as veep, & then turns out to be arguably the worst POTUS ever. It takes guts.....charisma......stamina.......the ability to think on your feet & make the hard decisions.....the ability to deal with tough customers on a 1/1 basis.
Bottom line.......I didn't choose Harris, Biden & the dems did, because either they felt the optics were more important than the job itself or they didn't have anyone better in the bullpen.......maybe both.
You judge Harris without her having the opportunity to prove you right or wrong, your analysis of her is similar to judging Trump off his multiple more public speaking screw ups and wanderings, but with Trump that is not the measure and Harris for you it is. Ive not seen you say anything specific or multiple specific things to say she is not qualified outside cackling and public speaking flaws you feel she has.
Over the years I had questions about most every new POTUS from Clinton an unknown to Bush a bumbling folksy guy to Obama an unknown commodity and no question Biden was not great in many ways. Of course Trump to me is far worse than all of them but the point is how can you say what Harris would or would not do or be as she did not have the chance? Using your logic that she came in at the last minute and swooped in as if that means she is not deserving, I could say the same about several other POTUS candidates from Clinton to Bush to Obama to especially Trump that none were heavy odds favorites the entire time, every one was an underdog and unexpected. I just do not agree with your conclusion or thought process about her NOR the way you judge her so harshly and are so full of allowance and understanding for a far far far worse person with the negative qualities you brand Harris with, Trump in most every single way is the worst president we have ever been forced to deal with.
Funny how our perspectives are blind in some ways and tolerant in some ways and yet the opposite in others.
@THEMUGG
You judge Harris without her having the opportunity to prove you right or wrong, your analysis of her is similar to judging Trump off his multiple more public speaking screw ups and wanderings, but with Trump that is not the measure and Harris for you it is. Ive not seen you say anything specific or multiple specific things to say she is not qualified outside cackling and public speaking flaws you feel she has.
Over the years I had questions about most every new POTUS from Clinton an unknown to Bush a bumbling folksy guy to Obama an unknown commodity and no question Biden was not great in many ways. Of course Trump to me is far worse than all of them but the point is how can you say what Harris would or would not do or be as she did not have the chance? Using your logic that she came in at the last minute and swooped in as if that means she is not deserving, I could say the same about several other POTUS candidates from Clinton to Bush to Obama to especially Trump that none were heavy odds favorites the entire time, every one was an underdog and unexpected. I just do not agree with your conclusion or thought process about her NOR the way you judge her so harshly and are so full of allowance and understanding for a far far far worse person with the negative qualities you brand Harris with, Trump in most every single way is the worst president we have ever been forced to deal with.
Funny how our perspectives are blind in some ways and tolerant in some ways and yet the opposite in others.
Ok you keep saying her numbers...how can there be a conversation when you do not understand the BLS and what their function is? Numbers are not hers, they are not the BLS or anyone working at the BLS. Your premise of numbers is wrong flat out mistaken, the numbers are those reported by corps and companies, they are not numbers from the BLS.
It is so bad it feels intentional, are you blatantly ignoring the truth or are you just continually trying to be combative? The numbers are not hers or anyone except those filling out the surveys. The BLS REPORTS the numbers FROM the companies, is that so impossible to grasp?
I get that Trump is clueless about the function of the BLS, I think he is out to lunch about pretty much everything but what is so hard to just admit that a reporter of data does not equate to ownership?
@Raiders22
Ok you keep saying her numbers...how can there be a conversation when you do not understand the BLS and what their function is? Numbers are not hers, they are not the BLS or anyone working at the BLS. Your premise of numbers is wrong flat out mistaken, the numbers are those reported by corps and companies, they are not numbers from the BLS.
It is so bad it feels intentional, are you blatantly ignoring the truth or are you just continually trying to be combative? The numbers are not hers or anyone except those filling out the surveys. The BLS REPORTS the numbers FROM the companies, is that so impossible to grasp?
I get that Trump is clueless about the function of the BLS, I think he is out to lunch about pretty much everything but what is so hard to just admit that a reporter of data does not equate to ownership?
Ok you keep saying her numbers...how can there be a conversation when you do not understand the BLS and what their function is?
The numbers SHE collected, analyzed and posted. It is her job to post accurate and timely numbers. She has not been doing that. Her main job is to do this and she has not been doing it effectively and was fired as a result.
You simply have to admit the numbers that she posted were off. Then you can meander off about what they mean and where they come from and what purpose that department serves.
So, yes I keep saying ‘her numbers’ because SHE was in charge. You can say ‘the numbers’ that SHE posted were off if you like.
@wallstreetcappers
Ok you keep saying her numbers...how can there be a conversation when you do not understand the BLS and what their function is?
The numbers SHE collected, analyzed and posted. It is her job to post accurate and timely numbers. She has not been doing that. Her main job is to do this and she has not been doing it effectively and was fired as a result.
You simply have to admit the numbers that she posted were off. Then you can meander off about what they mean and where they come from and what purpose that department serves.
So, yes I keep saying ‘her numbers’ because SHE was in charge. You can say ‘the numbers’ that SHE posted were off if you like.
Ok well you are finally starting to properly state what the BLS does, it took you long enough but not as long as it would for Trump.
How can the BLS be in charge of any timeline or immediate finality on their REPORTED figures when all they do is compile data they receive from corps? How can numbers that someone REPORTS be off? It would be similar to the Cardinals telecaster saying they lost the game after forecasting that they should win and then the team owner Mike Bidwill fires that person because he thinks they should have won.
The BLS cannot report complete data if they have not received it and they cannot own historical data OR current data, they report not own. You cannot manufacture accuracy nor can you contest accuracy, what is accurate is it the number Trump wants or is it within a certain threshold of a forecast? The businesses fill out surveys they are the source of accuracy but when you are collecting RANDOM data how can you manufacture accuracy? Accuracy to me is that the BLS as they receive the surveys collect and report the survey information, THAT is the measure of accuracy not what a percentage is. What you are suggesting is fraud and illegal calculation to form a narrative...you and Trump want the BLS to falsify data to a number you deem as accurate and do so on a timeline you feel is accurate and timely. If the respondents are not submitting their surveys and what they report is different than what Trump wants, the suggestion you are making means fraud and illegal activities. I do not want fake fraud data no matter what the relative difference between the real figure and a historical projection.
Not shocking Trump is good with manufactured fraudulent data though...we have seen that before.
@Raiders22
Ok well you are finally starting to properly state what the BLS does, it took you long enough but not as long as it would for Trump.
How can the BLS be in charge of any timeline or immediate finality on their REPORTED figures when all they do is compile data they receive from corps? How can numbers that someone REPORTS be off? It would be similar to the Cardinals telecaster saying they lost the game after forecasting that they should win and then the team owner Mike Bidwill fires that person because he thinks they should have won.
The BLS cannot report complete data if they have not received it and they cannot own historical data OR current data, they report not own. You cannot manufacture accuracy nor can you contest accuracy, what is accurate is it the number Trump wants or is it within a certain threshold of a forecast? The businesses fill out surveys they are the source of accuracy but when you are collecting RANDOM data how can you manufacture accuracy? Accuracy to me is that the BLS as they receive the surveys collect and report the survey information, THAT is the measure of accuracy not what a percentage is. What you are suggesting is fraud and illegal calculation to form a narrative...you and Trump want the BLS to falsify data to a number you deem as accurate and do so on a timeline you feel is accurate and timely. If the respondents are not submitting their surveys and what they report is different than what Trump wants, the suggestion you are making means fraud and illegal activities. I do not want fake fraud data no matter what the relative difference between the real figure and a historical projection.
Not shocking Trump is good with manufactured fraudulent data though...we have seen that before.
Hot Forum Topics
