• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the claims of the USA government generally tell manipulative lies?

Does the government frequently lie to us to manipulate us?

  • Yes, and it almost always succeeds

    Votes: 9 56.3%
  • Yes, but I am smart enough to know the difference

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • No, usually not

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • No, unless it necessary for our own good

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
    16

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now to derail any questioning of the government's claims is merely to call someone a conspiracy kook.

Does the government generally lie to manipulate the public? Most notable examples?

1. The justification for the Spanish-American war was the FACT that the Spanish sunk the Maine battleship. The whole war based on "REMEMBER THE
MAINE! A couple decades ago the truth came out that the Spanish had not sunk the Maine.

2. The beginning of WWI for the US was that the Germans suck the Lusitania strictly passenger ship, though Germans had taken out newspaper ads
specifically warning Americans not to get on it because it was a munitions ship. The USA adamently denied that was true. 50 years later it
admitted/known the Lusitannia was carrying 50,000,000 rounds of ammo and 500,000 artillery shells - probably why it sunk so fast.

3. The Vietnam War started with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution upon the FACT that N. Vietnamese patrol boats attacked a US destroyer. After we had
left it was admitted this never happened.

4. Gulf War II. Weapons of Mass Destruction

Now, about the economy:
Declaring there is essentially no inflation - but excluding food, fuel/gas/diesel, electricity and natural gas, medical bills and prescription drug prices from the calculation - those of course being THE most essential expenses of the poor and ordinary citizens - making that statistic a calculated lie.

Unemployment: All unemployed people who are not on unemployment benefits, over 65, or do not apply for jobs at a federal job location are not counted. Does not count school age teens who can't find work. Does not count college students who can't find a job.
The survey ONLY polls major corporations, so lost jobs in small business are not counted.
If a company converts a job from 40 hour full time with benefits, to TWO PART TIME jobs at 20 hours with no benefits, the government claims a job was created and unemployment reduced by 1, thus if 5,000,000 people lose full time employment for instead part time employment, the government declares 5,000,000 jobs were created - unless those two people then work 2 part time jobs, and then they claim 10,000,000 jobs created.

On war: "Casualities" until the Middle East wars ALWAYS meant soldiers killed or WOUNDED beyond an ability to be combat capable. NOW we are ONLY told how many died - and only how many died in combat - and died in the country. If the person can be flown out of the country before dying, it no longer counts and the nearly 10 times as many horrifically crippled literally count for nothing now.

The great boasting of the military and Obama was "killing Obama," although no dna sample allowed by any independent source, all the locals there in Pakistan claim publicly they knew the old guy who lived there and it wasn't Bin Ladin, the CIA claims to have lost all photographs of who they shot, his body rapidly tossed into the ocean and most the Seal Team involves shortly thereafter blown up in a freak, never discussed, helicopter explosion.

While boasting of decimating Al Qaeda, Obama is urging agreeing to send USA troops under a UN Flag to the country of Mali, contradictingly claiming that Al Qaeda has taken over half that country and adding to the list the number of countries we are now predator bombing to kill the claimed decimated Al Qaeda.

Is any of that true? Can we believe anything we are told anymore? Could we ever? Is there any reason to believe a damn thing the media tells us the government says is true, noting that all media now appears to no longer investigate anything and only pick one side or the other as a partisan matter?

Does the government generally tell deliberate lies to manipulate we-the-people?
 
Last edited:
Yes, thats a part of government, on many levels and for many reasons.
 
Does the government generally lie to manipulate the public? Most notable examples?

Yes, the government frequently lies. But some of your examples do not qualify:

Declaring there is essentially no inflation - but excluding food, fuel/gas/diesel, electricity and natural gas, medical bills and prescription drug prices from the calculation - those of course being THE most essential expenses of the poor and ordinary citizens - making that statistic a calculated lie.

No it's not. Excluding food and energy from the core inflation calculation is wise, because they are not economic indicators. If there is a drought, food prices will rise. If there is a fire at an oil refinery, fuel prices will rise. If you include those things in core inflation, you'll get a very distorted view of how serious inflation is...and this would lead to unwise policies to solve a nonexistent problem.

Unemployment: All unemployed people who are not on unemployment benefits, over 65, or do not apply for jobs at a federal job location are not counted. Does not count school age teens who can't find work. Does not count college students who can't find a job.

What you are referring to is the "unemployment rate," but there are several other measures of unemployment as well which the government publishes. Some of which are more inclusive, some of which are less inclusive. It isn't a lie, it just measures what it's intended to measure.

If a company converts a job from 40 hour full time with benefits, to TWO PART TIME jobs at 20 hours with no benefits, the government claims a job was created and unemployment reduced by 1, thus if 5,000,000 people lose full time employment for instead part time employment, the government declares 5,000,000 jobs were created - unless those two people then work 2 part time jobs, and then they claim 10,000,000 jobs created.

This is not correct. Unemployment is measured based on hours worked...a 20 hour job only counts half as much as a 40 hour job.

On war: "Casualities" until the Middle East wars ALWAYS meant soldiers killed or WOUNDED beyond an ability to be combat capable. NOW we are ONLY told how many died - and only how many died in combat - and died in the country. If the person can be flown out of the country before dying, it no longer counts and the nearly 10 times as many horrifically crippled literally count for nothing now.

I'm not sure if the government actually releases any "casualties" statistics at all. I think they're just reported in the media, which can use whatever definition it wants to use.
 
Yes, the government frequently lies. But some of your examples do not qualify:



No it's not. Excluding food and energy from the core inflation calculation is wise, because they are not economic indicators. If there is a drought, food prices will rise. If there is a fire at an oil refinery, fuel prices will rise. If you include those things in core inflation, you'll get a very distorted view of how serious inflation is...and this would lead to unwise policies to solve a nonexistent problem.



What you are referring to is the "unemployment rate," but there are several other measures of unemployment as well which the government publishes. Some of which are more inclusive, some of which are less inclusive. It isn't a lie, it just measures what it's intended to measure.



This is not correct. Unemployment is measured based on hours worked...a 20 hour job only counts half as much as a 40 hour job.



I'm not sure if the government actually releases any "casualties" statistics at all. I think they're just reported in the media, which can use whatever definition it wants to use.

So what you are saying is that you accept that statistics the government presents claiming the government is doing a good job with the economy are factually true as a certainty. Even though it known a change of administrations DOES call a huge number of people in government to be fired and replaced by the new incoming President - and that challenger is promising to law off people in government.

In short, you agree the government lied in the past, don't like my current examples, and present current government stats as inherently true? Or maybe that isn't what you are saying.

In terms of the government telling the truth to manipulate the public to the goals of government, do you think economic stats presented by the government are always truthful?
 
So what you are saying is that you accept that statistics the government presents claiming the government is doing a good job with the economy are factually true as a certainty.

The government offers no statistics that "claim the government is doing a good job with the economy." That is up to the voters to decide. The government does, however, offer statistics on inflation and unemployment which present an accurate measurement of what they were intended to measure.

Even though it known a change of administrations DOES call a huge number of people in government to be fired and replaced by the new incoming President - and that challenger is promising to law off people in government.

I live in DC, and I can definitively tell you that there are not that many people who are fired and replaced by new presidents...mainly just the top echelons of power. The people who compile these statistics are just life-long civil servants, not politicians.

In short, you agree the government lied in the past, don't like my current examples, and present current government stats as inherently true? Or maybe that isn't what you are saying.

More or less. The government frequently lies...I just don't think some of those examples qualify.

In terms of the government telling the truth to manipulate the public to the goals of government, do you think economic stats presented by the government are always truthful?

Yeah, the statistics are always truthful, in that they accurately measure what they say they will measure. But the way they are spun by politicians may not always be truthful.
 
Depends. This is far too broad an issue to say is the government lying. Which part?

Does the government lie. Sure.
Do all government agencies lie - At some point probably
Do all government employees lie - Probably not

the most notable examples of agency lying is CIA, FBI, DOD. There are of course others but it depends on when and whats the issue
 
Now to derail any questioning of the government's claims is merely to call someone a conspiracy kook.

Does the government generally lie to manipulate the public? Most notable examples?

1. The justification for the Spanish-American war was the FACT that the Spanish sunk the Maine battleship. The whole war based on "REMEMBER THE
MAINE! A couple decades ago the truth came out that the Spanish had not sunk the Maine.

2. The beginning of WWI for the US was that the Germans suck the Lusitania strictly passenger ship, though Germans had taken out newspaper ads
specifically warning Americans not to get on it because it was a munitions ship. The USA adamently denied that was true. 50 years later it
admitted/known the Lusitannia was carrying 50,000,000 rounds of ammo and 500,000 artillery shells - probably why it sunk so fast.

3. The Vietnam War started with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution upon the FACT that N. Vietnamese patrol boats attacked a US destroyer. After we had
left it was admitted this never happened.

4. Gulf War II. Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Lusitania was sunk in 1915 and the US didn't enter the war until 1917, and we entered it not because we had been attacked but for our own national interest. If anything the Zimmerman Telegram had more to do with it than the Lusitania.
 
No it's not. Excluding food and energy from the core inflation calculation is wise, because they are not economic indicators. If there is a drought, food prices will rise. If there is a fire at an oil refinery, fuel prices will rise. If you include those things in core inflation, you'll get a very distorted view of how serious inflation is...and this would lead to unwise policies to solve a nonexistent problem.

How could we possibly measure inflation if we intentionally leave out people's most common and direct expenditures? It renders the concept meaningless. I guess it's easy to insist we have no inflation when we're not allowed to actually examine reality.

What you are referring to is the "unemployment rate," but there are several other measures of unemployment as well which the government publishes. Some of which are more inclusive, some of which are less inclusive. It isn't a lie, it just measures what it's intended to measure.

Why not use Employment to Population Ratio? Is an unemployed person who stopped seeking employment employed, or unemployed? Again, the little tricks like these render the concepts meaningless.
 
How could we possibly measure inflation if we intentionally leave out people's most common and direct expenditures? It renders the concept meaningless. I guess it's easy to insist we have no inflation when we're not allowed to actually examine reality.

Because the whole purpose of collecting economic statistics is to use them to inform policy decisions. The policy solutions for dealing with high CORE inflation (e.g. raising interest rates and/or reducing the deficit) are completely different than the policy solutions for dealing with high FOOD inflation (e.g. hope for better weather next year).

If you include items like food and energy - for which the inflation rate is usually based more on random external factors than on economic policy - you will get a very warped view of how serious inflation is and what policies should be used (or not used) to solve it.

Why not use Employment to Population Ratio? Is an unemployed person who stopped seeking employment employed, or unemployed? Again, the little tricks like these render the concepts meaningless.

The employment-to-population ratio is a readily available statistic too. All the different measures of unemployment measure different things, and they never claim otherwise. Just because some people spin them in a certain way, and/or can't understand what they are measuring, doesn't mean they are "little tricks." They all measure what they say they measure, and nothing more or less.
 
Because the whole purpose of collecting economic statistics is to use them to inform policy decisions. The policy solutions for dealing with high CORE inflation (e.g. raising interest rates and/or reducing the deficit) are completely different than the policy solutions for dealing with high FOOD inflation (e.g. hope for better weather next year).

If you include items like food and energy - for which the inflation rate is usually based more on random external factors than on economic policy - you will get a very warped view of how serious inflation is and what policies should be used (or not used) to solve it.

I understand your argument, but are you recognizing how meaningless this information then becomes to the average family whose food and energy expenditures are= their largest variable expenses? Again I ask: What should be included in our measure of inflation whose prices does NOT depend on any random external factors (i.e. whose price depends solely on policy decisions?).

The employment-to-population ratio is a readily available statistic too. All the different measures of unemployment measure different things, and they never claim otherwise. Just because some people spin them in a certain way, and/or can't understand what they are measuring, doesn't mean they are "little tricks." They all measure what they say they measure, and nothing more or less.

This seems disingenuous. If you asked any halfway intelligent human who had never heard of economics to imagine what is meant by the term "unemployment rate," s/he would likely answer without pause that it refers to the percentage of people who don't have jobs. It would make sense to exclude children who can't by law have jobs and the retired who can't be expected to, but beyond that, the fact that there are "all the(se) different measures of unemployment" serves no purpose that I can see other than to sell an inaccurate storyline to the American people.
 
I understand your argument, but are you recognizing how meaningless this information then becomes to the average family whose food and energy expenditures are= their largest variable expenses?

That's fine...the statistics aren't intended for consumption by the average family anyway. The average family can draw its own conclusions about whether inflation is too high based on their own experience, and they can assign blame as they see fit.

Again I ask: What should be included in our measure of inflation whose prices does NOT depend on any random external factors (i.e. whose price depends solely on policy decisions?).

We'll never eliminate random external factors entirely, but generally core inflation excludes food and energy, because those are the most volatile. If you eliminate those, you'll get a fairly good view of inflation that's not dependent on external factors.

This seems disingenuous. If you asked any halfway intelligent human who had never heard of economics to imagine what is meant by the term "unemployment rate," s/he would likely answer without pause that it refers to the percentage of people who don't have jobs. It would make sense to exclude children who can't by law have jobs and the retired who can't be expected to, but beyond that, the fact that there are "all the(se) different measures of unemployment" serves no purpose that I can see other than to sell an inaccurate storyline to the American people.

The BLS estimates the number of jobs created each month, and it has always been about informing policy rather than "selling an inaccurate storyline to the American people." In fact, the whole media ritual of reporting the monthly jobs figures only started in 2008; the BLS has been compiling those statistics for decades.
 
We'll never eliminate random external factors entirely, but generally core inflation excludes food and energy, because those are the most volatile.

I'm not sure you detect the irony there. As soon as the price of item X (previously included in the CPI) starts rising substantially, indicating inflation, we call it "too volatile" to continue factoring in to inflation. I think government (and hence its statisticians) have an incentive to make us believe we're not getting nickled and dimed by inflation and therefore must change how they measure it.

It is essentially changing the rules of the game as soon as soon as you start losing. I.e. cheating.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you detect the irony there. As soon as the price of item X (previously included in the CPI) starts rising substantially, indicating inflation, we call it "too volatile" to continue factoring in to inflation. I think government (and hence its statisticians) have an incentive to make us believe we're not getting nickled and dimed by inflation and therefore must change how they measure it.

And I think you're conflating government (which is mostly comprised of nonpartisan civil servants) with politics.

Although the exact criteria change slightly from year to year, it's been fairly standard for a long time that food and energy are excluded, and most everything else is included. There isn't any partisan element or even any pro-incumbent element in play here...the people who compile these statistics have often been in their jobs for decades. Core inflation statistics are not perfect, but they generally present a much more accurate picture than including food and energy would.
 
And I think you're conflating government (which is mostly comprised of nonpartisan civil servants) with politics.

Although the exact criteria change slightly from year to year, it's been fairly standard for a long time that food and energy are excluded, and most everything else is included. There isn't any partisan element or even any pro-incumbent element in play here...the people who compile these statistics have often been in their jobs for decades. Core inflation statistics are not perfect, but they generally present a much more accurate picture than including food and energy would.

Kandahar (previous post) said:
That's fine...the statistics aren't intended for consumption by the average family anyway. The average family can draw its own conclusions about whether inflation is too high based on their own experience, and they can assign blame as they see fit.

Good points (even though I have disagreements). I will remember this discussion the next time a fiscal conservative complains about inflation and someone fights back with announcements about how low the "official" inflation figures are and have been. Clearly we are considering different standards... fiscal conservatives are likely thinking about the average family's expenditures, of which food and energy are among the most important. The expertise you cite of government statisticians and the will of political credit-takers don't translate well to the ACTUAL expenditures of families, of which food and energy are among the most crucial.

We should qualify which sort of unemployment and inflation we're talking about in these debates, because otherwise we're speaking different languages.
 
Does the government lie? Absolutely. Does the media back up the governments position often? Yes. Its called manufacturing consent.
 
Inflation and the unemployement stats have all been changed in the last 30 years (mid Reagan admin) and have since then made both look better then past data

Check out Shadow Stats to get data that reflects that of pre mid 80s
 
Back
Top Bottom