[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')Yes, I know it didn't work for you. I was being sarcastic (thus the eye roll, for those in doubt).

The article stated there was no bias, indicating the data didn't show bias. But you are sure there was bias because you believed in government.

1). Do you have any data/links to show why this is true?

2). Just because there is incompetence and disagreement in government, doesn't mean there is systematic bias. For example if the pessimist in department A tends to push the short term numbers down and the optimist in department B tends to push the short term numbers up, it might not have any net influence over time. Also, since the numbers are derived from calculations, one would hope that systematic distortion of the numbers would be caught over time by competent people or entities like the CBO, OMB, etc.

3). The Obama administration certainly should be taken to task on keeping promises. That's different than lots of deliberate outright fraud. Do you have evidence of outright fraud? (Example: claiming Obamacare would save everyone $2500 per family on premiums (on average) was closer to politics and incompetence and broken promises to me. If you could show that the ACA statistics bweing published are being actively faked by the Obama administration and that Obama knows and condones this, then that would actually be fraud.

4). You haven't told us any specifics of how you were fooled. Can you do that, or is it classified?

...

Look, I generally don't like or trust big government, on principle. However, I don't just assume all big government is completely dishonest without some sort of evidence. The internet if full of people (representing both major) parties constantly claiming lying and conspiracy by the other side. However, how often is any meaningful proof provided? I'd say far less than 1% of the time.

[vtsnowedin]

A story on the morning news today. 62.8 percent of labor force is working.
To my cynical mind that means the real unemployment rate is 37.2 percent. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali ... -11-months

[marmico]

There must have been 41% "unemployment" in The Leave it to Beaver era.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3GmN

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marmico', 'T')here must have been 41% "unemployment" in The Leave it to Beaver era.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3GmN

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'A') story on the morning news today. 62.8 percent of labor force is working.
To my cynical mind that means the real unemployment rate is 37.2 percent. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali ... -11-months