Welfare corporations? California? Illinois? New York City? Connecticut? Minnesota? Those have punitive state taxes that must be lowered via lowered spending on …. excessive welfare benefits to those who are not truly needy, and are certifiably capable of working.
Which politician do you think will oppose the extension of the [alleged] temporary tax cuts? I only see politicians about to retire as being willing to do so. THAT won’t stop the passage of a bill making the tax redux permanent. But, you’re allowed to dream. So, dream on.
Most likely due to TRA-17, job additions were 313k for Feb., vs 200k estimated! The 4.1% U3 rate didn’t drop to 4.0%. When the March numbers are out…. maybe it will fall below 4.0%?
Why couldn’t Obama grow jobs like Trump? Taxes on corporations.
By the way, I’m still not tired of winning. I’m bored of it, because it’s happened so often since 1/20/17, but I’m not tired.
No more links are allowed without triggering the spam filter.
March 9, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Confused – let me help you with your reply.
Fair enough TC4PRB …. let’s look at the number of people employed instead of the unemployment rate (even though YOU were the one who brought up the unemployment rate). Let’s see….
In February…the number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 6.7 million. (See table A-1.)
The number of long-term unemployed…was essentially unchanged at 1.4 million in February (See table A-12.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons…was little changed at 5.2 million in February. (See table A-8.)
In February, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little different from a year earlier. (See table A-16.)
So the NUMBER of employed/unemployed people really didn’t change at all according to your cited source.
Rebuttal???
March 9, 2018 at 2:15 pm
Sal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Yogi–
You do realize that there are no “George Soros Paid Trolls” infiltrating the IJ, right? Please tell me that every time you post about them, you’re doing so in jest.
My guess is that people downvote you because of your tone, and they realize it’s absolutely pointless to debate with you. You’ve apparently irked enough people on here that they choose to just downvote you.
March 9, 2018 at 2:16 pm
Sal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Wait, so during the Obama years anything with .gov was not considered a reliable source, but now it is? Ok, I get it…
March 11, 2018 at 11:40 am
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
@Rosenblatt: here are the key points you avoided:
FIRST:
Over the year, the number of long-term unemployed was down by 369,000. (See table A-12.)
That is significant because LTU is a chronic problem; employers are open to considering this category of ‘previously undesirable, stigma associated, unemployed. Employers are reaching DEEP into the pool of workers to find people to fill new openings.
SECOND:
The civilian labor force rose by 806,000 in February. The labor force participation rate increased by 0.3 percentage point over the month to 63.0 percent but changed little over the year. (See table A-1.)
This is level over the year, but the INCREASE of 806,000 in FEBRUARY is a sign of job growth NOW, that can be expected to continue into the future because of the TRA-17 corporate tax rate cut.
THIRD:
In February, total employment, as measured by the household survey, rose by 785,000.
This is a sign of pending job growth, due to TRA-17.
FOURTH:
The employment-population ratio increased by 0.3 percentage point to 60.4 percent in February, following 4 months of little change. (See table A-1.)
This is another sign of growth following enactment of TRA-17 that can reasonable be expected to continue in an S-curve pattern, eventually peaking at a higher, albeit unknown, level.
So, the use of the LONG TERM annual changes you focused on is improper at this point of a recent intervening economic factor; i.e. TRA-17. The growth or level patterns apply to non-TRA-17 periods and two months under TRA-17. Apples to Oranges comparisons are invalid for true analyses of the trend of the US economy after TRA-17.
Thanks for your challenging reply.
March 12, 2018 at 12:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You’re a brat. This is you trying to balance the scales, and you never kept the left in check with this same phrase. You don’t get to comment like this. You get to use logic. Not brat like attempts to balance the scales.
Here are some reasons this last month looked good:
February has not had a month of numbers this high in over 20 years, and going further back than that doesn’t make sense considering the population increases.
The equivalent would be like Bill Clinton’s December in 1990 which hasn’t happened in the 20 years since.
That is a sign of the tax law working.
Also, the LPR didn’t tick down with these extra jobs. They ticked up.
With Obama the LPR rate mattered, because in the course of a year it dropped over the course of his tenure dramatically along side lower unemployment numbers. Your crud for beans throwing things in the conservatives faces on this one does not pan out.
Trump’s LPR will take time to change, and at least this last month ticked up. I already said given typical statistical noise, it could well be going up, and the drop has certainly stopped. We will see if it goes up, but it is not an opinion that the LPR dropping was why the unemployment rate went down quicker and created an illusion of a fast recovery. All the signs of a recovery with Obama were not there. Wage growth kept going down as the democrats claimed the recession was over as the LPR was dropping. The signs of a recovery simply were not there kiddo, and you trying to use who said what instead of numbers and common sense is exactly what you accuse others of doing.
You’re not an intellectual moderate. You’re a whiny brat on this site.
Grow up.
March 12, 2018 at 12:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Brain is fried, Bill Clinton wasn’t president until 1992, technically 93.
So…Bush HW’s December.
March 12, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
313,000 new jobs on the last month’s count, which is about 113,000 more than the so called expert economists. No, we aren’t tired of winning, just tired of the whiners who are the Resistance. I recommend they donate their tax savings to charity if they don’t want them.
“Yeah, so let’s make those permanent like the ones the welfare corporations are receiving!”
That was impossible without 60 votes, and the democrats refused to take part.
The benefits of the lower corporate tax rates have already been shown to be doing their job, and that was before they were already even in affect.
The whole thing should have been made permanent, you’re right.
So why wasn’t it?
Also: Tax cuts are not corporate welfare. The rates on those businesses are too high. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
Right now I can make more money not making money, than making more money. And it has to do with what benefits I receive vs where my taxes cut off. It is more balanced since the tax cuts, but that is where now the spending cuts must come in.
There needs to be incentive and reward for working hard.
“Right now I can make more money not making money, than making more money.”
Right now I can work more hours not working more hours than working more hours.
Right now I can type more replies not typing replies than typing more replies. Right now I can upset you by not upsetting you than by upsetting you.
Right now, we see the failure of socialists to admit they either don’t understand marginal rates of production or the punitive nature of excessive taxes that go beyond what is needed to fund minimal, essential government services.
If taxes have been punitive, how did the GDP increase by 29.17% and 11.64 million jobs created during the previous administration?
To take it further, since job losses were stabilized at the beginning of 2010 thru January 2017, 15.9 million jobs have been created.
March 12, 2018 at 4:45 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Compare and contrast.
Your argument is weak.
GDP has been low by typical standards, even you have tried to explain this away by stating that it is because productivity is high and retires and students are in surplus.
So if GDP goes up now, considering retirees and students are on the rise, will you simply write that off?
In his first year Trump matched Obama’s better years.
Coincidence? If after tax cuts this bump goes to 3.5%, something that hasn’t happened in 10 years, what will you say then?
You’re not comparing and contrasting. Your a jack who likes to excuse everything on the left and you never at all analyze republican plans outside of idiotic statements like the above.
March 12, 2018 at 10:06 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
1.2917 ^ (1/8) = 1.0325. That implies 3.25% GDP growth over Obama’s 8 years in office. We all know he never hit 3%, so your claim of 29.17% growth is wrong. Give us the real numbers this time.
11.64 million jobs created include MANY MANY part time jobs necessitated by ACA’s 30 hour rule causing employers to reduce workers hours to 29 and for those workers to find 2nd jobs to make ends meet. Try again, but give us the REAL numbers this time.
March 13, 2018 at 10:38 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I was speaking of total GDP growth from 2009 ($14.418 trillion) through 2016 ($18.624 trillion), not annual growth.
(18.624-14.418)/14.418=29.17%
Show us the data indicating how many of the jobs created during the previous administration and the jobs being created since 1/20/1 were part-time vs full-time.
March 13, 2018 at 10:41 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“If after tax cuts this bump goes to 3.5%, something that hasn’t happened in 10 years, what will you say then?”
I would say that is below the target projections of this administration and is insufficient to pay for the tax cuts. Let’s see where the debt is in October 2020. If it is higher and still climbing, I would have been proven to be right. If it lower and decreasing, I would have proven to be wrong.
Their employees will also like the Tax cut with increased checks, contributions to 401 K’s and bonuses for good work.
Yeah, so let’s make those permanent like the ones the welfare corporations are receiving!
Welfare corporations? California? Illinois? New York City? Connecticut? Minnesota? Those have punitive state taxes that must be lowered via lowered spending on …. excessive welfare benefits to those who are not truly needy, and are certifiably capable of working.
Which politician do you think will oppose the extension of the [alleged] temporary tax cuts? I only see politicians about to retire as being willing to do so. THAT won’t stop the passage of a bill making the tax redux permanent. But, you’re allowed to dream. So, dream on.
Most likely due to TRA-17, job additions were 313k for Feb., vs 200k estimated! The 4.1% U3 rate didn’t drop to 4.0%. When the March numbers are out…. maybe it will fall below 4.0%?
Why couldn’t Obama grow jobs like Trump? Taxes on corporations.
By the way, I’m still not tired of winning. I’m bored of it, because it’s happened so often since 1/20/17, but I’m not tired.
Oh, I forgot; Dec and Jan jobs numbers were revised UPWARD in February.
Remind me again why I should believe the unemployment rate is a valid number? I mean….
“It’s such a phony number. That number was put in for presidents and for politicians so that they look good to the people.
Unemployment is a totally phony number.
The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.
Nobody has jobs. … It is not a real economy. It is a phony set of numbers. They cooked the books.
Unemployment rate only dropped because more people are out of labor force & have stopped looking for work. Not a real recovery, phony numbers
Look again, you hear these phony jobs numbers? People that gave up looking for jobs? They are considered employed.
The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. These are phony numbers.”
Look at the NUMBER OF EMPLOYED instead of U3.
Also, look at the RISE in the workforce NUMBER, not ratios.
Finally, FWIW, look at the U6 numbers.
MAWA
Here’s a good summary, but it doesn’t have the U6 numbers;
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Here’s the series of ‘U’ numbers that show the last year by qtr;
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
No more links are allowed without triggering the spam filter.
Confused – let me help you with your reply.
Fair enough TC4PRB …. let’s look at the number of people employed instead of the unemployment rate (even though YOU were the one who brought up the unemployment rate). Let’s see….
In February…the number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 6.7 million. (See table A-1.)
The number of long-term unemployed…was essentially unchanged at 1.4 million in February (See table A-12.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons…was little changed at 5.2 million in February. (See table A-8.)
In February, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little different from a year earlier. (See table A-16.)
So the NUMBER of employed/unemployed people really didn’t change at all according to your cited source.
Rebuttal???
Yogi–
You do realize that there are no “George Soros Paid Trolls” infiltrating the IJ, right? Please tell me that every time you post about them, you’re doing so in jest.
My guess is that people downvote you because of your tone, and they realize it’s absolutely pointless to debate with you. You’ve apparently irked enough people on here that they choose to just downvote you.
Wait, so during the Obama years anything with .gov was not considered a reliable source, but now it is? Ok, I get it…
@Rosenblatt: here are the key points you avoided:
FIRST:
Over the year, the number of long-term unemployed was down by 369,000. (See table A-12.)
That is significant because LTU is a chronic problem; employers are open to considering this category of ‘previously undesirable, stigma associated, unemployed. Employers are reaching DEEP into the pool of workers to find people to fill new openings.
SECOND:
The civilian labor force rose by 806,000 in February. The labor force participation rate increased by 0.3 percentage point over the month to 63.0 percent but changed little over the year. (See table A-1.)
This is level over the year, but the INCREASE of 806,000 in FEBRUARY is a sign of job growth NOW, that can be expected to continue into the future because of the TRA-17 corporate tax rate cut.
THIRD:
In February, total employment, as measured by the household survey, rose by 785,000.
This is a sign of pending job growth, due to TRA-17.
FOURTH:
The employment-population ratio increased by 0.3 percentage point to 60.4 percent in February, following 4 months of little change. (See table A-1.)
This is another sign of growth following enactment of TRA-17 that can reasonable be expected to continue in an S-curve pattern, eventually peaking at a higher, albeit unknown, level.
So, the use of the LONG TERM annual changes you focused on is improper at this point of a recent intervening economic factor; i.e. TRA-17. The growth or level patterns apply to non-TRA-17 periods and two months under TRA-17. Apples to Oranges comparisons are invalid for true analyses of the trend of the US economy after TRA-17.
Thanks for your challenging reply.
You’re a brat. This is you trying to balance the scales, and you never kept the left in check with this same phrase. You don’t get to comment like this. You get to use logic. Not brat like attempts to balance the scales.
Here are some reasons this last month looked good:
February has not had a month of numbers this high in over 20 years, and going further back than that doesn’t make sense considering the population increases.
The equivalent would be like Bill Clinton’s December in 1990 which hasn’t happened in the 20 years since.
That is a sign of the tax law working.
Also, the LPR didn’t tick down with these extra jobs. They ticked up.
With Obama the LPR rate mattered, because in the course of a year it dropped over the course of his tenure dramatically along side lower unemployment numbers. Your crud for beans throwing things in the conservatives faces on this one does not pan out.
Trump’s LPR will take time to change, and at least this last month ticked up. I already said given typical statistical noise, it could well be going up, and the drop has certainly stopped. We will see if it goes up, but it is not an opinion that the LPR dropping was why the unemployment rate went down quicker and created an illusion of a fast recovery. All the signs of a recovery with Obama were not there. Wage growth kept going down as the democrats claimed the recession was over as the LPR was dropping. The signs of a recovery simply were not there kiddo, and you trying to use who said what instead of numbers and common sense is exactly what you accuse others of doing.
You’re not an intellectual moderate. You’re a whiny brat on this site.
Grow up.
Brain is fried, Bill Clinton wasn’t president until 1992, technically 93.
So…Bush HW’s December.
313,000 new jobs on the last month’s count, which is about 113,000 more than the so called expert economists. No, we aren’t tired of winning, just tired of the whiners who are the Resistance. I recommend they donate their tax savings to charity if they don’t want them.
“Yeah, so let’s make those permanent like the ones the welfare corporations are receiving!”
That was impossible without 60 votes, and the democrats refused to take part.
The benefits of the lower corporate tax rates have already been shown to be doing their job, and that was before they were already even in affect.
The whole thing should have been made permanent, you’re right.
So why wasn’t it?
Also: Tax cuts are not corporate welfare. The rates on those businesses are too high. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
Right now I can make more money not making money, than making more money. And it has to do with what benefits I receive vs where my taxes cut off. It is more balanced since the tax cuts, but that is where now the spending cuts must come in.
There needs to be incentive and reward for working hard.
“Right now I can make more money not making money, than making more money.”
Right now I can work more hours not working more hours than working more hours.
Right now I can type more replies not typing replies than typing more replies. Right now I can upset you by not upsetting you than by upsetting you.
Right now, we see the failure of socialists to admit they either don’t understand marginal rates of production or the punitive nature of excessive taxes that go beyond what is needed to fund minimal, essential government services.
If taxes have been punitive, how did the GDP increase by 29.17% and 11.64 million jobs created during the previous administration?
To take it further, since job losses were stabilized at the beginning of 2010 thru January 2017, 15.9 million jobs have been created.
Compare and contrast.
Your argument is weak.
GDP has been low by typical standards, even you have tried to explain this away by stating that it is because productivity is high and retires and students are in surplus.
So if GDP goes up now, considering retirees and students are on the rise, will you simply write that off?
In his first year Trump matched Obama’s better years.
Coincidence? If after tax cuts this bump goes to 3.5%, something that hasn’t happened in 10 years, what will you say then?
You’re not comparing and contrasting. Your a jack who likes to excuse everything on the left and you never at all analyze republican plans outside of idiotic statements like the above.
1.2917 ^ (1/8) = 1.0325. That implies 3.25% GDP growth over Obama’s 8 years in office. We all know he never hit 3%, so your claim of 29.17% growth is wrong. Give us the real numbers this time.
11.64 million jobs created include MANY MANY part time jobs necessitated by ACA’s 30 hour rule causing employers to reduce workers hours to 29 and for those workers to find 2nd jobs to make ends meet. Try again, but give us the REAL numbers this time.
I was speaking of total GDP growth from 2009 ($14.418 trillion) through 2016 ($18.624 trillion), not annual growth.
(18.624-14.418)/14.418=29.17%
Show us the data indicating how many of the jobs created during the previous administration and the jobs being created since 1/20/1 were part-time vs full-time.
“If after tax cuts this bump goes to 3.5%, something that hasn’t happened in 10 years, what will you say then?”
I would say that is below the target projections of this administration and is insufficient to pay for the tax cuts. Let’s see where the debt is in October 2020. If it is higher and still climbing, I would have been proven to be right. If it lower and decreasing, I would have proven to be wrong.