How many times did this happen under Obama leadership?

SlugSlinger

Sharpshooter
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
2,838
Location
Owasso
The answer; never/none!
43FE41C1-E687-4B42-84CF-EBF7C615EA92.png

US employers added a stellar 312,000 jobs in December Vs an estimate of 180,000.

U.S. employers went on a hiring spree in December, adding a surprising 312,000 jobs and providing a dose of reassurance about the economy after a turbulent few months on Wall Street.

The job gains reported Friday by the Labor Department came despite a trade war with China, a global slowdown and a partial government shutdown now entering its third week.

The nation’s unemployment rate rose slightly to 3.9 percent last month, but that, too, was considered a positive sign, reflecting an increase in Americans beginning to look for work. And average hourly pay improved 3.2 percent from a year ago.

Stocks surged on the news, along with word that the U.S. and China will hold trade talks next week and comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell that the Fed will be flexible in judging whether to raise interest rates further. The Dow Jones industrial average shot up 747 points, or 3.3 percent.

President Donald Trump called the job growth “GREAT” on Twitter.

The torrid hiring in December far outstripped the 180,000 jobs investors had been anticipating and could help ease fears that the economy’s expansion — now in the middle of its 10th year — may be coming to an end.

“The labor market is very strong even though the economy appears to be slowing,” said Eric Winograd, senior U.S. economist at the investment management firm AllianceBernstein. “Those two things cannot coexist for very long. Either weakening demand will lead firms to dial back the pace of hiring or the robust pace of hiring will lead firms to ramp back up production.”

In recent weeks, financial markets have plunged amid concerns that the U.S. could be in a recession by 2020. The Dow suffered its worst December since the middle of the Depression in 1931.

Major companies such as Apple say their sales are being jeopardized by the tariff war between Washington and Beijing, and an important gauge of U.S. manufacturing posted its steepest decline in a decade Thursday.

China, the world’s second-largest economy, is also mired in a slowdown, its consumers losing much of their appetite for real estate, iPhones, Ford vehicles and jewelry from Tiffany & Co.

The U.S. government shutdown and Trump’s attacks on the Fed and its chairman over the central bank’s rate increases have also worried investors, though Powell may have eased some of those concerns Friday when he stressed that he would not resign if the president told him to do so.

The strong job growth suggests employers believe U.S. consumer spending will stay robust.

Health care and education added 82,000 jobs last month, the largest jump in nearly nine years. Restaurants and drinking places posted a net gain of 40,700 jobs. Builders added 38,000 construction jobs, while manufacturers increased their payrolls by 32,000 workers.

Businesses are still searching for more workers.

Fresh Coat Painters, based in Cincinnati, plans to nearly double the 300 employees who paint homes and businesses as it expands this year across this country. The franchiser is also launching an apprenticeship program to attract workers, in addition to providing higher pay and benefits.

Tara Riley, president of Fresh Coat, said that franchise owners are having to actively search for workers instead of simply posting ads.

“We realized it was a mindset change: You have to be recruiting, rather than hiring,” Riley said.

Still, Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, cautioned on Thursday that the jobs report for January could be weak if the shutdown continues. Job totals could be lowered by hundreds of thousands of government employees being temporarily put out of work.

“So when we see the January jobs number, it could be a big negative,” Hassett said.

In 2018, employers added 2.6 million jobs, or an average of nearly 220,000 a month, according to the Labor Department.

At some point, even if the economy remains healthy, monthly job gains will likely downshift to a more gradual pace. This is because there is a dwindling pool of unemployed people. There were 6.3 million people looking for a job in December, down from 6.5 million a year ago.

“People should not get used to numbers like the one we saw this month,” said Martha Gimbel, director of economic research at the jobs site Indeed. “Eventually, job growth is going to start slowing down. When that happens, we shouldn’t panic.”
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
74,185
Reaction score
34,631
Location
Ponca City Ok
Yep, heard the estimate from the so called 'economist' experts this morning. It's almost disgusting how the liberal think tanks want us to fail. They still can't believe that capitalism works. They've been indoctrinated to think otherwise.

Absolutely. They want to kill free enterprise to achieve their goals of government controlling everything.
Cortez is even gunning for a 70% tax on what she calls the wealthy to fund closing ALL fossil fuel burning power plants to rely on wind, hydro, and solar only for our nations energy needs.
That girl has not a clue in the world about reality.

Let’s put numbers to that. If one worked their butt off, was frugal in their spending and saved 2 million dollars, Cortez wants $1,400,000.00 of that to fund green energy leaving you with $60,000 dollars. I’m thinking the US version of the French yellow jackets may just appear?
 

dlbleak

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Administrator Moderator Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
15,193
Reaction score
11,240
Location
edmond
Absolutely. They want to kill free enterprise to achieve their goals of government controlling everything.
Cortez is even gunning for a 70% tax on what she calls the wealthy to fund closing ALL fossil fuel burning power plants to rely on wind, hydro, and solar only for our nations energy needs.
That girl has not a clue in the world about reality.

Let’s put numbers to that. If one worked their butt off, was frugal in their spending and saved 2 million dollars, Cortez wants $1,400,000.00 of that to fund green energy leaving you with $60,000 dollars. I’m thinking the US version of the French yellow jackets may just appear?
And she has a degree in economics, we’re forked if this is the best we can do.
This is not the fresh new voice of the Democrat party, this is what the Democrat party has become.
 
Last edited:

k4ylr

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
252
Reaction score
288
Location
OKC
"How many times did this happen under Obama leadership?"

Lol, some Dems probably think it's a result of Obama's policies still kickin' in... :D

Like when you compare them out as a trend like Forbes has done? They're great jobs numbers. Full stop. But being misleading is really disingenuous. They're literally following the same trend; and quite close over all, outside of Manufacturing.

Also, the 70% tax isn't a flat tax. We have a progressive tax system. AOC isn't going to take a flat 70 cents of your dollar. The 70% bracket is for income above a certain threshold. I know progressive tax systems are convoluted and the US does a poor job of explaining it to people but c'mon guys; getting your jimmies rustled and puffing your chests because "lol dems so stupid" when you're missing the point is disappointing and in bad faith.

On top of that; the vast majority of people that would affect, are sheltered since their income is generally cap gains; which is taxed at a paltry sum when compared to yours or my income via wages. The ultra-wealthy, which this plan is aimed at, don't got time for wages; they are rolling in passive income, which funny enough, also got a massive deduction in the tax bill.

So, if she's aiming it wages, it's likely to not accomplish anything at all. If it's going after capital gains and pass-through income, it'll actually have some teeth.

Thus,all of your wages are unaffected, unless you somehow are rolling in massive wage incomes; you might be affected.

And the whole call out for the market being up is a poor attempt at trying to fluff already good numbers and is more of a foot in mouth scenario. The market got annihilated by the end of 2018 and had one of the worst Decembers on record. I highly doubt anybody here finished in the green in their accounts unless you were inverse leveraged heavily (props to your broker), shorted the markets or only held cash.
 
Last edited:

dlbleak

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Administrator Moderator Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
15,193
Reaction score
11,240
Location
edmond
Like when you compare them out as a trend like Forbes has done? They're great jobs numbers. Full stop. But being misleading is really disingenuous. They're literally following the same trend; and quite close over all, outside of Manufacturing.

Also, the 70% tax isn't a flat tax. We have a progressive tax system. AOC isn't going to take a flat 70 cents of your dollar. The 70% bracket is for income above a certain threshold. I know progressive tax systems are convoluted and the US does a poor job of explaining it to people but c'mon guys; getting your jimmies rustled and puffing your chests because "lol dems so stupid" when you're missing the point is disappointing and in bad faith.

On top of that; the vast majority of people that would affect, are sheltered since their income is generally cap gains; which is taxed at a paltry sum when compared to yours or my income via wages. The ultra-wealthy, which this plan is aimed at, don't got time for wages; they are rolling in passive income, which funny enough, also got a massive deduction in the tax bill.

So, all of your general wages are unaffected, unless you somehow are rolling in massive 1099 and W2 incomes (great!).
Yes, this is all true but I think what blows sane people away is she’s being touted as one of the brightest new stars of the party. Her colleagues are signing their support and we still don’t know what ‘wealthy’ is.
I’m betting my idea of wealthy and hers/theirs don’t compare.
 

k4ylr

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
252
Reaction score
288
Location
OKC
Yes, this is all true but I think what blows sane people away is she’s being touted as one of the brightest new stars of the party. Her colleagues are signing their support and we still don’t know what ‘wealthy’ is.
I’m betting my idea of wealthy and hers/theirs don’t compare.

Totally agree with you there. She's just gone ahead with the typical "Look at me! I'm a Maverick, 70%!!!!111!!" I'm curious to see her idea actually fleshed out with a breakdown but until then I'll reserve my judgement as nothing more than a chortle and a brief guffaw as it's nothing more than pandering and lip service to from the freshman class.
 

Dave70968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Norman
Yes, this is all true but I think what blows sane people away is she’s being touted as one of the brightest new stars of the party. Her colleagues are signing their support and we still don’t know what ‘wealthy’ is.
I’m betting my idea of wealthy and hers/theirs don’t compare.
Well, it's about half-true. Capital gains taxes are applied to the gains on stocks (price appreciation) held over a year, then sold. As soon as they're sold--realizing the gain--they become taxable, but they cease to be investments at that point, so there's no more "passive" income. In order to get them "producing" again, the money has to be used to purchase another investment, and that will only get into cap gains rates if the shares are held for over a year, so they're not liquid. Anything held less than a year is taxed at ordinary income rates.

Another possibility for "passive" income is dividends--that is, part of the company's profits distributed to the shareholders in proportion to their holdings. Receiving dividends doesn't divest the shareholders of their shares, so it really is "passive" income that can go on indefinitely. It, however, is also taxable as ordinary income. It's also subject to the corporation's income tax before it's distributed as diviends, thus resulting in double taxation (and the reason small companies choose to be taxed under subchapter S--so-called "S-corps"--rather than subchapter C).
 
Top Bottom