Unemployment rate falls to 3.9 percent, lowest level since 2000

The national unemployment rate now stands at 3.9 percent, the lowest level in nearly two decades, according to U.S. Labor Department figures for April.

A major driver behind the lower unemployment number was that a large number of Americans have exited the workforce: labor force participation was at 63 percent, close to its lowest level since the 1970s and unchanged since the start of 2018.

During his 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump raised questions about the validity of the official unemployment rate because it fails to account for people who have dropped out of the workforce.

About 164,000 jobs were added in April, which was significantly lower than the expected increase of 192,000. That compares to 135,000 jobs added in March, Politico reported.

What about wages?

Average hourly private-sector wages were 2.6 percent higher than April of the previous year, and about the same level as March. The figure does not reflect the annual inflation rate of slightly over 2 percent.

In October, the White House Council of Economic Advisers predicted the tax bill would boost the average household income by at least $4,000.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/...est-level-since-2000

 

 

The stupidity of liberals, ability to ignore their ignorance

and to Destroy what gives them freedom

 

Original Post

Can you imagine the "Breaking Headline News" banners and announcements that the mainstream media would be touting if this had occurred during Obama's term?  Then you have political hacks like Valorie Jarret who dared to try and give credit for the economic situation to Obama.  Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

All this since Nov. 2016 has nothing to do with the trees, they see
very well but their socialist brains can't allow them to think objectively..
They can't think in terms for the good of the country because they don't
care what happens to it.

 

If they did there wouldn't be liberal Dems, and/or no way can they give
you good reasons why Sweden, France, Venezuela, England or Germany
is better off as a nation, ? A beginning of the end for these people could
be a certainty

 

The stupidity of liberals, ability to ignore their ignorance

Naio posted:

You didn't read it either.

The Blaze just praised Trump for the same figures that Liarstraigts whines about incessantly. Trump's figures for growth are a meager 2.6 increase. Liarstraights calls those numbers the worst recovery numbers in 100 years or he did when they belonged to Obama's Administration. I'm sure they're 'magical' now and represent greatness.

Br’er Rabbit posted:

Liarstraights: We were told 2% was the new norm. Worst recovery in 100 years.

also Liarstraights: 2.6% growth is wonderful.

I wonder why 2% growth was so horrible for the past 8 years, but acceptable now?

I believe that for the first quarter GDP growth from 2011 to 2016 were  -1.5, 2.7, 0.1, -0.9, 3.2,and 0.6% respectively for an average of 0.7% for that time period of Ol'bama. 

https://www.statista.com/stati...-real-gdp-in-the-us/

Stanky posted:
Br’er Rabbit posted:

Liarstraights: We were told 2% was the new norm. Worst recovery in 100 years.

also Liarstraights: 2.6% growth is wonderful.

I wonder why 2% growth was so horrible for the past 8 years, but acceptable now?

I believe that for the first quarter GDP growth from 2011 to 2016 were  -1.5, 2.7, 0.1, -0.9, 3.2,and 0.6% respectively for an average of 0.7% for that time period of Ol'bama. 

https://www.statista.com/stati...-real-gdp-in-the-us/

Sorry, I prefer the chart that direstraights posts, regularly.

Per the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average GDP growth for Obama's eight years was 1.8 percent.  That is the worst recovery in over 100 years.  I researched back to 1915.  Please, find a worse recovery, if one can.  My statistics are drawn from the Obama administration.  Perhaps, his people lied.  They were experts at doing so.  But, for what purpose, in this case, I can't imagine.  

direstraits posted:

Per the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average GDP growth for Obama's eight years was 1.8 percent.  That is the worst recovery in over 100 years.  I researched back to 1915.  Please, find a worse recovery, if one can.  My statistics are drawn from the Obama administration.  Perhaps, his people lied.  They were experts at doing so.  But, for what purpose, in this case, I can't imagine.  

That's great, but what exactly makes 2.6% so wonderful while 2.0% is the worst in history? 0.6% growth makes all the difference in the world? Really?

The average GDP for the first five quarters of the Trump administration is 2.5 percent.  Excluding the first quarter, when Obama was still president for 20 days and his legacy lingered on like a rotten carcass, the average is 2.9 percent.

Couple that with U3 unemployment rate of 3.9 percent (lowest in three decades, per above) and the U6 unemployment rate of 7.0 percent (U6 dropped under 9 percent in 2017, the first time its dropped that low in over 9 years.)   

Then, consider the increase in the industrial production index for the last 12 months.

us industrial production index

 

Slowly, but steadily, it appears the US economy is recovering and not lurching along at the bottom, as it did in the past maladministration. 

Attachments

Photos (1)
direstraits posted:

The average GDP for the first five quarters of the Trump administration is 2.5 percent.  Excluding the first quarter, when Obama was still president for 20 days and his legacy lingered on like a rotten carcass, the average is 2.9 percent.

Couple that with U3 unemployment rate of 3.9 percent (lowest in three decades, per above) and the U6 unemployment rate of 7.0 percent (U6 dropped under 9 percent in 2017, the first time its dropped that low in over 9 years.)   

Then, consider the increase in the industrial production index for the last 12 months.

us industrial production index

 

Slowly, but steadily, it appears the US economy is recovering and not lurching along at the bottom, as it did in the past maladministration. 

I might note that any present increase in industrial production should be predominately from regulatory reform; it's really too soon to be seeing much effect from the tax cuts yet after just a single quarter. The real world isn't about sudden service via magic wand, it's about slow steady change.

lets look at the GDP graph for a 10 year period.


source: tradingeconomics.com

 

what was the big deal about The present figures that you didn't see in the last administration? I just see a whole lot of growth, for the last 10 years, with some bad quarters mixed in. I see growth rates of over 4%, under Obama. I can't seem to find where any of you were excited about that, what was the difference? Why praise Trump for the same numbers that you criticized Obama for, it doesn't make sense.

Kraven posted:
Doesn't matter who does the bunny hop, it's the worse recovery
for eight Tears in the failure
 
Now the Liberal Mama Land just lost it's Nuclear BS Card to
lie to the world about the bogus Baraak deal, very dumb deal,
from dumb people...

 

Time will tell how the Middle East deals with the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons. Israel isn't very happy about it. They may be the first target. I can't see where allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be a good idea for anyone, but Republicans can, evidently.

What exactly does this have to do with the topic of discussion??

Br’er Rabbit posted:
Kraven posted:
Doesn't matter who does the bunny hop, it's the worse recovery
for eight Tears in the failure
 
Now the Liberal Mama Land just lost it's Nuclear BS Card to
lie to the world about the bogus Baraak deal, very dumb deal,
from dumb people...

 

Time will tell how the Middle East deals with the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons. Israel isn't very happy about it. They may be the first target. I can't see where allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be a good idea for anyone, but Republicans can, evidently.

What exactly does this have to do with the topic of discussion??

It has everything to do with the economy, the way the public feels
safe or unsure...
Kraven posted:
Br’er Rabbit posted:
Kraven posted:
Doesn't matter who does the bunny hop, it's the worse recovery
for eight Tears in the failure
 
Now the Liberal Mama Land just lost it's Nuclear BS Card to
lie to the world about the bogus Baraak deal, very dumb deal,
from dumb people...

 

Time will tell how the Middle East deals with the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons. Israel isn't very happy about it. They may be the first target. I can't see where allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be a good idea for anyone, but Republicans can, evidently.

What exactly does this have to do with the topic of discussion??

It has everything to do with the economy, the way the public feels
safe or unsure...

Get back to me when gas prices have doubled. Tell me how wonderful this idea was, then.

You do realize most of those terrorists you fear live in the middle east, right? Are you going to feel safer when they have nukes?

Br’er Rabbit posted:

The POTUS National Security Advisor, John Bolton, is on record saying the US will invade Iran before the end of the year. Feel safer, yet?

I'm not that concerned that America will invade Iran nor do I think that is on the agenda.  I don't doubt that seeds are being planted, reinforced by Trump's speech today, for insurrection from within Iran by Iranian citizens that are opposed to the regime in power now.  There have been those who have attempted to effect change during the Obama administration and those efforts were met with no help or encouragement on behalf of the US.  Obama was clearly out of his element and in a job he was not equipped for.  I don't know though that Obama is to blame because any President is only as good as his advisors and cabinet that he aligns himself with.  

What I do believe is far more probable, if not predictable, is that Iran will be struck in an attack generated in, and by, Israel.  I don't know about the exact side agreements with the Iran deal but it was rumored that Iran would be pre-warned by the US if an attack was discovered coming from Israel.  In other words, the Obama administration would warn Iran if an attack was about to occur from Israel.  There is no doubt that Israel was not Obama's favorite nor did the Obama administration appear even friendly to Israel but rather accommodated them.

Trump IS extremely friendly and complimentary toward Israel and Israel knows it has a staunch friend in the White house with Trump whereas Israel loathed and detested Obama and never trusted him.  Now that Israel knows it has a friendly ear and person in the White House and in control of America's military I think the chances that they will formulate an attack upon Iran and strike is far more probable rather than the US doing anything directly.   IF THOUGH Iran was to attack one of our ships or attack us directly then it's Katy bar the door, so to say and I wouldn't discount anything that Trump might do to respond but respond he would do and I doubt, knowing that, Iran would take such a strike.  

The Iran Deal let Iran compete with Russia for oil contracts. Now, they can't. Imagine that, Trump helping Russia. It just keeps on going with no end in sight. Now, Republicans support Israel starting WWIII. Every Ally the US has, has begged the US not to drop out. We will face this without the support of any of our Allies or the UN. In deal talks with North Korea, the North Koreans will know the US can't be trusted on their word. I can't see how this helps make America great in any way.

gbrk posted:
Br’er Rabbit posted:

The POTUS National Security Advisor, John Bolton, is on record saying the US will invade Iran before the end of the year. Feel safer, yet?

I'm not that concerned that America will invade Iran nor do I think that is on the agenda.  I don't doubt that seeds are being planted, reinforced by Trump's speech today, for insurrection from within Iran by Iranian citizens that are opposed to the regime in power now.  There have been those who have attempted to effect change during the Obama administration and those efforts were met with no help or encouragement on behalf of the US.  Obama was clearly out of his element and in a job he was not equipped for.  I don't know though that Obama is to blame because any President is only as good as his advisors and cabinet that he aligns himself with.  

What I do believe is far more probable, if not predictable, is that Iran will be struck in an attack generated in, and by, Israel.  I don't know about the exact side agreements with the Iran deal but it was rumored that Iran would be pre-warned by the US if an attack was discovered coming from Israel.  In other words, the Obama administration would warn Iran if an attack was about to occur from Israel.  There is no doubt that Israel was not Obama's favorite nor did the Obama administration appear even friendly to Israel but rather accommodated them.

Trump IS extremely friendly and complimentary toward Israel and Israel knows it has a staunch friend in the White house with Trump whereas Israel loathed and detested Obama and never trusted him.  Now that Israel knows it has a friendly ear and person in the White House and in control of America's military I think the chances that they will formulate an attack upon Iran and strike is far more probable rather than the US doing anything directly.   IF THOUGH Iran was to attack one of our ships or attack us directly then it's Katy bar the door, so to say and I wouldn't discount anything that Trump might do to respond but respond he would do and I doubt, knowing that, Iran would take such a strike.  

No, Bolton did not say the US would invade Iran this year.  He did say that a group of mainly Persian expatriates and exiles he was addressing that they would celebrate the downfall of the Islamist regime. 

Extremist conspiracy site.  Move over Infowars, there are people crazier than you.

http://watchmanscry.com/?p=7540

"Bolton stated just the opposite to invasion recently.

National security adviser John Bolton said Tuesday that President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal isn't part of a broader plan to attack the country.

Bolton, a national security hawk considered by detractors to be too quick to support the use of military force, denied a plan to invade Iran following Trump's televised speech ending U.S. participation in the deal."

https://www.washingtonexaminer...elude-to-us-invasion

Stanky posted:
direstraits posted:

The average GDP for the first five quarters of the Trump administration is 2.5 percent.  Excluding the first quarter, when Obama was still president for 20 days and his legacy lingered on like a rotten carcass, the average is 2.9 percent.

Couple that with U3 unemployment rate of 3.9 percent (lowest in three decades, per above) and the U6 unemployment rate of 7.0 percent (U6 dropped under 9 percent in 2017, the first time its dropped that low in over 9 years.)   

Then, consider the increase in the industrial production index for the last 12 months.

us industrial production index

 

Slowly, but steadily, it appears the US economy is recovering and not lurching along at the bottom, as it did in the past maladministration. 

I might note that any present increase in industrial production should be predominately from regulatory reform; it's really too soon to be seeing much effect from the tax cuts yet after just a single quarter. The real world isn't about sudden service via magic wand, it's about slow steady change.

Its the confluence of these three statistics, along with others that show we're finally digging out of the mess left behind.  For instance, 2.1 million less on food stamps. 

direstraits posted:
gbrk posted:
Br’er Rabbit posted:

The POTUS National Security Advisor, John Bolton, is on record saying the US will invade Iran before the end of the year. Feel safer, yet?

I'm not that concerned that America will invade Iran nor do I think that is on the agenda.  I don't doubt that seeds are being planted, reinforced by Trump's speech today, for insurrection from within Iran by Iranian citizens that are opposed to the regime in power now.  There have been those who have attempted to effect change during the Obama administration and those efforts were met with no help or encouragement on behalf of the US.  Obama was clearly out of his element and in a job he was not equipped for.  I don't know though that Obama is to blame because any President is only as good as his advisors and cabinet that he aligns himself with.  

What I do believe is far more probable, if not predictable, is that Iran will be struck in an attack generated in, and by, Israel.  I don't know about the exact side agreements with the Iran deal but it was rumored that Iran would be pre-warned by the US if an attack was discovered coming from Israel.  In other words, the Obama administration would warn Iran if an attack was about to occur from Israel.  There is no doubt that Israel was not Obama's favorite nor did the Obama administration appear even friendly to Israel but rather accommodated them.

Trump IS extremely friendly and complimentary toward Israel and Israel knows it has a staunch friend in the White house with Trump whereas Israel loathed and detested Obama and never trusted him.  Now that Israel knows it has a friendly ear and person in the White House and in control of America's military I think the chances that they will formulate an attack upon Iran and strike is far more probable rather than the US doing anything directly.   IF THOUGH Iran was to attack one of our ships or attack us directly then it's Katy bar the door, so to say and I wouldn't discount anything that Trump might do to respond but respond he would do and I doubt, knowing that, Iran would take such a strike.  

No, Bolton did not say the US would invade Iran this year.  He did say that a group of mainly Persian expatriates and exiles he was addressing that they would celebrate the downfall of the Islamist regime. 

Extremist conspiracy site.  Move over Infowars, there are people crazier than you.

http://watchmanscry.com/?p=7540

"Bolton stated just the opposite to invasion recently.

National security adviser John Bolton said Tuesday that President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal isn't part of a broader plan to attack the country.

Bolton, a national security hawk considered by detractors to be too quick to support the use of military force, denied a plan to invade Iran following Trump's televised speech ending U.S. participation in the deal."

https://www.washingtonexaminer...elude-to-us-invasion

Bolton's exact words 'we'll be celebrating in Tehran by 2019'.  That sure sounds like we're gonna invade, but I'm sure Republicans heard something else.

direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:
direstraits posted:

The average GDP for the first five quarters of the Trump administration is 2.5 percent.  Excluding the first quarter, when Obama was still president for 20 days and his legacy lingered on like a rotten carcass, the average is 2.9 percent.

Couple that with U3 unemployment rate of 3.9 percent (lowest in three decades, per above) and the U6 unemployment rate of 7.0 percent (U6 dropped under 9 percent in 2017, the first time its dropped that low in over 9 years.)   

Then, consider the increase in the industrial production index for the last 12 months.

us industrial production index

 

Slowly, but steadily, it appears the US economy is recovering and not lurching along at the bottom, as it did in the past maladministration. 

I might note that any present increase in industrial production should be predominately from regulatory reform; it's really too soon to be seeing much effect from the tax cuts yet after just a single quarter. The real world isn't about sudden service via magic wand, it's about slow steady change.

Its the confluence of these three statistics, along with others that show we're finally digging out of the mess left behind.  For instance, 2.1 million less on food stamps. 

You do realize the Republicans cut food stamps, right? Of course there are less people on them, that doesn't mean less people need them. It means Republicans aren't willing to allow people to have them. Do you ever make a statement that's just plain old truth? It always has to have that Republicans slant on it. A lie wrapped around a small sliver of truth.

There sure is a lot of angst in the liberal ranks regarding Trump pulling us out of the Iran agreement.  Actually, you can blame Obama for Trump even being able to make that decision.  Fact is that Obama signed this agreement himself solely because a bipartisan Congress would not agree to sign it as a treaty so it was no more than a Presidential agreement with Iran and one in which the leaders of Iran didn't even have to sign off on it.  Furthermore one of the side agreement John Kerry (and Obama)  agreed to was that under the agreement the United States agreed to protect Iran from an attack even if that attack came from Israel.

So because Obama did not go through Congress, which was the constitutional way, to enact a treaty/agreement with Iran, Trump only had decided to pull the US out of it and because it was without Congress that it was enacted then Congress did not have anything to do with Trump's removal.

One last comment, with respect to Gas Prices.  I do believe that higher gas prices affect the overall economy and can slow it down as well as taking more money out of the pockets of families.  Gas prices are around $2.70 right now with oil at around $70.00 a barrel but under Obama, prices were in the upper three dollar area.  Additionally, oil prices under Obama were raising because we (America) was far more dependent upon foreign nations for our oil and because the refining capacity of our nation is still quite diminished.  What actually brought prices down was the availability of domestic oil from fracking, something that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with.  Fracking became economical when the cost for oil reached as high as it did making it profitable for frackers.  When Trump opened up domestic fields, that Obama had long closed, for exploration and oil then the US no longer was reliant upon foreign nations, many that are hostile to us,   

Regardless of prices of oil though FAR greater expenses and money is coming out of families budgets due to the Democrat's messing with healthcare and healthcare insurance.  Deductibles that families have to pay before any insurance takes effect have increased exponentially in some cases.  In my specific families case, our deductible increased from $400.00 a year for our family deductible to $4000.00 SOLELY because of Democratic Healthcare bill, not Republicans.  So when it comes to money out of my pocket rising oil cost cannot approach the financial pain, brought on because of Democrat's (non)Affordable Healthcare bill.    

If you want me to feel all warm and fuzzy about voting for Democrats or a Democrat then the Democrats need to FIX what they broke but sadly I don't think that's a possibility.

Gas is rising for three reasons -- half of the refineries close at a time to change to the summer blends, more people traveling as the weather warms and they have more money to spend and the improving global economy. 

State and county taxes have a bit to do with it, as well. I drove from California to Alabama, lately.  I paid $3.85 a gallon in LA, $3.35 a gallon in Nevada and $3.15 in New Mexico.  

The Republican "do nothing Congress' is the reason Obama couldn't get a treaty ratified by Congress. Gas is rising for one reason, Oil is going up. PERIOD.  Trump pulled the funding for the ACA and now Republicans will be responsible for the coming increases. Why do Republicans manage to leave out all the facts when they give their Party Line statements?

I wonder how those farmers, who supported Trump, like that slap in the face they got for their troubles. They can't sell their crops if nobody is willing to buy them. Thank Trump for the looming trade wars.

direstraits posted:

Note that Senator Schemer Schumer was against Obama's agreement.  Now, the demagogue is attacking Trump for ending it.  

How long did it take for Iran and Israel to start shooting at each other? You know, exactly what Democrats told Republicans would happen.

The do nothing Dems can't tell anyone anything how to defend
their country, especially the ones who end up(Repubs) winning
the wars. Baraak was the biggest failure for foreign affairs.
Liberals like him believe you can trust the murdering psychopath
muslims when they promise to kill you anyway.

 

Hussinsaine knew it was treasonous when he made the Iran deal.
It still very well could hurt the US and parts of the world.

Americans have allies, and maybe one true friend.....

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×