How Bad Is It, Really?

This article discusses a commonly known difficulty in the stats. How about looking at something maybe even more important. Over 30 years ago Robert Townsend wrote, in his book, Up the Organization, that when accounting tell you the books are not comparable to previous years because of changes in accounting methods, that should be a red flag.
Go to www.snipurl.com/blsdetaila. You can call up employment and unemployment stats back to 1948. If you do, you will find there is a footnote on every year where the accounting methods changed. From 1948 until 2003 you will find one footnote. From 2003 on you will find a footnote every single year. They changed the methodolgy every single year from 2003 on.

The question is not are the numbers accurate, the question is, are the numbers honest.

This article discusses a commonly known difficulty in the stats. How about looking at something maybe even more important. Over 30 years ago Robert Townsend wrote, in his book, Up the Organization, that when accounting tell you the books are not comparable to previous years because of changes in accounting methods, that should be a red flag.
Go to www.snipurl.com/blsdetaila. You can call up employment and unemployment stats back to 1948. If you do, you will find there is a footnote on every year where the accounting methods changed. From 1948 until 2003 you will find one footnote. From 2003 on you will find a footnote every single year. They changed the methodolgy every single year from 2003 on.

The question is not are the numbers accurate, the question is, are the numbers honest.

This article discusses a commonly known difficulty in the stats. How about looking at something maybe even more important. Over 30 years ago Robert Townsend wrote, in his book, Up the Organization, that when accounting tell you the books are not comparable to previous years because of changes in accounting methods, that should be a red flag.
Go to www.snipurl.com/blsdetaila. You can call up employment and unemployment stats back to 1948. If you do, you will find there is a footnote on every year where the accounting methods changed. From 1948 until 2003 you will find one footnote. From 2003 on you will find a footnote every single year. They changed the methodolgy every single year from 2003 on.

The question is not are the numbers accurate, the question is, are the numbers honest.

This article discusses a commonly known difficulty in the stats. How about looking at something maybe even more important. Over 30 years ago Robert Townsend wrote, in his book, Up the Organization, that when accounting tell you the books are not comparable to previous years because of changes in accounting methods, that should be a red flag.
Go to www.snipurl.com/blsdetaila. You can call up employment and unemployment stats back to 1948. If you do, you will find there is a footnote on every year where the accounting methods changed. From 1948 until 2003 you will find one footnote. From 2003 on you will find a footnote every single year. They changed the methodolgy every single year from 2003 on.

The question is not are the numbers accurate, the question is, are the numbers honest.

"...an upsurge of entrepreneurial activiy..."??? This article isn't very intelligent when considering other factors that show how the economy is declining. One example in many is the increase in foreclosures. C'mon, people aren't losing their jobs and suddenly beginning their own flourishing businesses, especially when you listen to your own article with it's noted stats on race, class, and education. It's funny how many people will read this article and tend to agree simply b/c it's in Newsweek. But even they have bad articles sometimes.

Generally, the unemployment statistics come from a count of those "currently" receiving benefits. If your benefit time has run out, however, you are still unemployed (with no income) You are not counted because you aren't getting unemployment benefits. Therefore, the count of Unemployed people is likely MUCH higher than reported.

In my opinion,we do not rely on data completely,and we should do some practical work to help those who have lost their jobs.For them,they need a job to support them and their family.For some, they do not have difficulties in their life although they lost jobs,because they have ability to feed them.The target we concern about firstly is low-income people who need our help.

In my opinion,statistics is just number,and we do not need to rely on it completely.what we should do is to concern about people who really want jobs to support them and their family.Someone without job may not want job egerly as others,becase he or she has enough money to live,and yet he or she does need a job.So we should do practical work to help those who have difficulties in daily life.Well,that is my simple comment .

The Home Foreclosure is 1/2% to 1.5% of Total Homes, this is Farless than Unemployment Which is Close to 7%., HERE ARE SOME THOUGHTS- HOW TO TACKLE THESE

1)REGARDING HOME FORCLOSURES
Now Home Owner Should have option to Refiinance at LOWER HOUSE PRICE, AT LOWER INTEREST RATE AND AT LONGER PERIOD SAY 50 TO 60 YEARS. The Loss on HOUSE PRICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BEDEDUCTED 100% From paid Taxes or LUMPSUM OF SAY $ 20, 000 FROM PAID TAXES OR GOVERNMENT PAY BACK LOSSSES.

2)REGARDING UNEMPLOYMENT

LOWER THE RETIREMENT AGE FEW YEARS AND THIS WILL WIPE OUT 7% UNEMPLOYMENT, THIS MAY CREAT NEGATIVE EMPLOYMENT THUS NEED MORE FOREIGN EMPLOYEES TO BE IMPORTED- ALLOW SMART ETHICAL FAMILY ORIENTED INDIVIDUALS

The Home Foreclosure is 1/2% to 1.5% of Total Homes, this is Farless than Unemployment Which is Close to 7%., HERE ARE SOME THOUGHTS- HOW TO TACKLE THESE

1)REGARDING HOME FORCLOSURES
Now Home Owner Should have option to Refiinance at LOWER HOUSE PRICE, AT LOWER INTEREST RATE AND AT LONGER PERIOD SAY 50 TO 60 YEARS. The Loss on HOUSE PRICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BEDEDUCTED 100% From paid Taxes or LUMPSUM OF SAY $ 20, 000 FROM PAID TAXES OR GOVERNMENT PAY BACK LOSSSES.

2)REGARDING UNEMPLOYMENT

LOWER THE RETIREMENT AGE FEW YEARS AND THIS WILL WIPE OUT 7% UNEMPLOYMENT, THIS MAY CREAT NEGATIVE EMPLOYMENT THUS NEED MORE FOREIGN EMPLOYEES TO BE IMPORTED- ALLOW SMART ETHICAL FAMILY ORIENTED INDIVIDUALS

Explain the math--If 1.8 million jobs have been lost in the last 3 months (average 600,000/month) then how can 598,000 be the most since 1974?

All of you can point fingers all you want. The fact remains that companies like ours (www.cedarnetwork.com) are suffering. We never had to contact people to buy our material, and we are now hurting for orders since June of last year. Just enough to survive, we are now resorting to efforts not seen since the early 1980's. We are lucky, compared to others! I am tired of the same old finger pointing, does no one any good! WE NEED CHANGE! The Cedar Network

Some goof balls leave the same message on multiple articles. Must be a ditto head. Can't think of anything original to say. I just learned the last two recessions we had ended in 1846 and 1941. Amazing facts. I guess we should have kept Hoover around a little longer. Using the army to attack protesters would have ended the Great Depression sooner. You are right Dough head. Hitler brought Germany out of the depression before anyone else.

When it comes to the economy, Obama is quite simply a liar. Hear him in his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok&refer=home

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) --

"The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government???s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation???s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients??? names have not been disclosed. "

Less than 40% of Americans now support the "stimulus Bill." That means more than 60% now oppose the Bill. Obama got less than 53% of the popular vote.

The question now becomes: Will Obama bring change to Washington by doing the will of the American people, or is he in fact chained to the tired old partisan politics of Pelosi, Reid, and the radical left. If the latter, he is no longer representing the majority of the American people.