FRAUD?? Did the Dept. of Labor "Game" Unemployment Numbers for Obama?

Note: If you cannot see two videos in this post, Please click here.


Today's unemployment numbers remind me of my weekly football picks, with my heart picks the Jets, but my brain which controls my fingers has the last say..and it usually goes for the their opponents.

My heart hopes the Unemployment Rate of 7.8% (down .3%) is true (having been out of work for the first three years of the Obama administration) but my brain tells me that something bogus is going on. The U-6 unemployment number, which accounts for the underemployed and those who have given up looking for jobs, held steady at 14.7 percent.

The number of unemployed dropped 456,000 last month, while only 114,000 jobs got added.  That either means that 342,000 people moved out of the country or left the work force.  The household numbers are a bit out of whack, and doesn't really match the--as the number of people with jobs rose by 873,000 the highest growth since 1983.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart explains:

The BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics)  reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

Jack Welch the former head of GE tweeted:

Wealth-manager Ed Butowsky  agreed, saying on FBN that "No way are these numbers accurate!"

Even on Morning Joe, the host and his guest found the numbers a bit on the confusing side:

CNBC said the numbers "were contradictory"

Job growth remained tame in September, with the economy creating just 114,000 net new positions though the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, the first time it has been below 8 percent in 43 months.

The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number.

The falling jobless rate had been a function as much of the continued shrinking in the labor force as it was an increase in new positions.

The bottom line is this. Not knowing the inner mechanics of the unemployment rate I could not tell you for sure that these numbers are "fudged" a bit.  It could be a total coincidence that the unemployment rate fell below 8% a month and a day before the election. And right after the president did a lousy job on an economic debate.  It also could be a total coincidence that the numbers don't exactly fit together.

All I can tell you is that there are people like Jack Welch who understand these numbers better than me...who smell a rat!