About those new jobs created by the Biden-Harris administration
On this administration’s jobs creation:
BREAKING: 818,000 jobs that the Harris-Biden administration claimed to have “created” aren’t actually there, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
This is the largest downward revision to employment in 15 years. pic.twitter.com/6ryjKs5kbK
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 21, 2024
Even the NY Times covered the story, but in a very low-key “not much to see here” way, and without mentioning either Biden or Harris at all.
Was this a case of outright deception on the part of the admininistration?:
Although it’s impossible to know whether the BLS’s misstatement of employment data was intentional or simply an error, given the drastic lengths to which Democrats have already gone to keep Trump out of the White House — the 2016 Russian collusion hoax, two Trump impeachments, the October 2020 letter signed by 51 former intelligence community officials declaring the Hunter Biden laptop story had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign, the government’s insistence that the COVID-19 lab leak theory was a conspiracy, four bogus Trump indictments, two spurious civil lawsuits in New York, concerted efforts to remove Trump’s name from the ballot in several blue states, and the Democrats’ extraordinary efforts to hide Biden’s deteriorating cognitive health — it’s become more and more difficult to trust this administration.
I would say that long ago it became impossible to trust this administration. Then again, you can also trust them to be incompetent as well as to lie.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Yeah, “difficult to trust” is a significant understatement. Our government burned the bridge of trustworthiness long, long ago. If the government made a proclamation that water was in fact, wet; I would be tempted to check for myself. What’s truly ridiculous is that all these endless lies and distortions are all told in an effort to stop Donald Trump. Donald Trump, a guy who is politically essentially a 90’s era Democrat with a cartoonish and somewhat overbearing personality, a tendency towards protectionism, and some strange fashion choices. They’ve gone out of their way to portray him as Hitler 2.0. It’s truly remarkable in its insanity.
I love the dancing at the DNC, reminds me of whistling past the graveyard.
An unbiased error would be sometimes higher approximately to the same degree it is sometimes lower.
But the jobs estimates from this administration only show one kind of error.
and some strange fashion choices.
==
Just the haircut. What’s curious is that the other men in his family have ordinary hair. He and his sister Maryanne favored architectural hair.
==
They’ve gone out of their way to portray him as Hitler 2.0. It’s truly remarkable in its insanity.
==
A. Liberals fancy public institutions are their property. When the opposition wins, it’s always illegitimate.
==
B. Liberals are enraged their usual sh!t stirring doesn’t work with Trump. Might give other Republicans the idea that the proper response to pseudocontroversies is not to cave or apologize. They’ve lost a measure of control.
==
C. Trump is a threat to one of their grand projects – manufacturing a one-party state through population replacement.
RFK Jr set to endorse Trump maybe Friday. That could add between 4-7 pts in the current polling IF (big IF) those following him go to Trump. Maybe some sort of cabinet post to seal the deal???
When the DNC essentially blocked RFK out of the primaries, I think they set in motion this event. Of course, they’re all for “democracy”…snark. In line with this post, it’s become obvious RFK really doesn’t trust the Democrats at all. Who could blame him?
Physicsguy – I would offer an advisor role or maybe Ambassador position (Ireland?) for RFK, Jr. I am not sure a cabinet position would be a good thing since we want to reduce government size as well as the deep state characters.
“Was this a case of outright deception on the part of the administration?”Or incompetence?
Given the regularity of revisions made to employment and unemployment numbers un ways favorable to the Biden regime, the investing community concludes YES — it’s deliberate.
I’ll go further and add that this is the Deep State at work, doing CYA for their preferred Big State candidate. In other words, propaganda.
Now, about the problem of the traitorous Deep Seated phalanx of bureaucrats that will actively defeat change within the government?
Over at the Open thread, I’ll post a couple of LINKS to discussion and solutions. Later.
Re the revisions to job numbers, I recall that during Trump years, the number would be posted and then a few months later there would be a upward revision to the number, which never got the same level of attention as the original report.
I tried finding some news reports about this, but everything is coming up the current revision
The only new jobs created by Sundowner and Harris are Bureaucratic ones and Illegals stealing jobs from Americans
physicsguy:
I’ll believe that RFK endorsement when I see it. Not sure whether his followers would go to Trump, anyway.
Art Deco:
Trump also favors loose suits and also overlong ties.
It’s the Leviathan, the vast, untouchable mass of civil servants, that actually do this. And they naturally do it to support that which will give them more power.
“Was this a case of outright deception on the part of the administration?” Or incompetence?
An incompetent attempt at deception.
The more I’ve seen, the more I’ve come to believe that the “Professionalization of the Civil Service” was a mistake, or at least was in the method it happened. The Spoils System was a rotten way to do government, but it at least provided a certain amount of reactivity. Sure you might appoint whatever candidates you thought were right for the job (Whether due to competence, because they were your guys, or not) but if your opponent got in after you they’d kick out any they didn’t want and put in their own people. Who in turn could do the same to them. It helped undercut the idea of a permanent Mandarin Class and made the bureaucracy somewhat more responsive to changing winds, even if politicization and corruption were possible or even a feature.
It was largely sold on the idea of finally getting rid of political partisan appointees, taking things out of the hands of two faced politicians, and getting experts in to do the job “right.” And in places and times that probably worked. But what it largely did was create a culture of bureaucratic elites who were at least as politicized and corrupt as what they were created to replace, but who were even harder to bring into account. This along with the general bloat of the government and its budget over time, inadequate attempts to trim it down, the Confederates spoiling the term “States Rights” for over half the country by tying it to their rancid, hypocritical treason, AND the rise of technocratic ideals elsewhere have made this much harder to deal with.
In any functioning private sector, conduct like this would be a red flag for fraud. But who watches the watchers? Who is custodian of the custodians?
“Trump also favors loose suits and also overlong ties.”
His ties are long, but maybe not too long for him. They are supposed to hit your belt. That becomes problematic if you have a long trunk, and then some girth. My trunk is long enough that I have to tie normal ties with only a bit hanging in the back. My father was the same way. He would tuck it in his shirt so it wasn’t noticeable. Not all of us are billionaires who can afford custom ties.
Compromise between permanent civil servants and the spoils system would be term limits and career limits for bureaucrats somewhat like military and naval service. Many, many serve but most can’t make a career out of it no matter how much they want it. Fauci had his job from 1984-2022. He should have been limited to about 5-7 years as director of NIAID and been forcibly retired by 2005.
@ Chases Eagles > “Compromise between permanent civil servants and the spoils system would be term limits and career limits for bureaucrats somewhat like military and naval service. ”
Agreed; and put in a hard retirement age.
If you are too old to sell parts at Home Depot, you shouldn’t be running the country.
In re Civil Service: protecting humdrum mundane positions like secretaries, mail carriers, and other non-leadership functionaries was IMO a good idea. However, the “protection” goes too far up the ladder into jobs where partisan turnover is what elections are FOR.
If it were deliberate, why release the correction now rather than after the election?
Churchill also said: “Every dog has his day and some days are longer than others”.
Anyone who’s ever watched “Yes, Minister” knows how the civil service works. Personnel is policy, and changing out the top two or three levels after an election doesn’t do much of anything.
Unelected, unaccountable, and unfireable bureaucrats do a great deal of harm outside government, because the dicta of regulatory agencies is complied with by the private sector just as though it were law.