Trump loses to Obama...in monthly job gains

[Spamature]

it stayed there until dem/libs lost majority in Congress

Nope. Gopers didn't take over congress until Jan 5, 2011.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 7, 2011
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION DECEMBER 2010
The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.4 percent in December, and nonfarm payroll employment increased by 103,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01072011.pdf

Under Trump only 48k more jobs were created in Dec 2017 than in Dec 2010.
He promised to be the greatest job POTUS EVER ! Yet, even with the boost from Obama he fell short.

 

[middleview]

We all lost under obama (except the freeloaders) but we are all wining with Trump

I did a whole lot better with Obama in office than I did with "W". I worked for a company and quit in 2005...the company went under in 2007. There were record numbers of people who lost their homes as foreclosures went through the roof starting in 2006.

We all really did nose under Bush...In what quarter under Obama did we lose a couple million jobs? Oh, we didn't...that was "W".

 

[Raoul_Luke]

especially if your party has majority of Congress

Unless your name is Donald Trump...

 

[middleview]

LMAO! You got this from a "Maddow Blog" and you expect anyone to take you serious??? Good one Julie!!

Those numbers are verifiable. Try the BLS or ADP.

In December 2015 we gained 257,000 jobs.

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 257,000 Jobs in December 2015.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adp-national-employment-report-private-131500417.html

Compare that to when Bush was in charge...this was from October 2008.

Jobs take a beating
An outplacement firm reports that October job cuts by U.S. employers rose by the highest amount since January 2004. Payroll manager ADP's toll: 157,000 cut.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/05/news/economy/challenger_adp/index.htm

ADP Reports 693,000 Jobs Lost in December 2008
https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/adp-jobs-report/1644

 

[Raoul_Luke]

This is from 2016.

There are nearly 12.5 million manufacturing workers in the United States, accounting for 8.5 percent of the workforce. Since the end of the Great Recession, manufacturers have hired more than one million workers. There are 7.8 million and 4.7 million workers in durable and nondurable goods manufacturing, respectively. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Foreign direct investment in manufacturing exceeded $1.5 trillion for the first time ever in 2016. Across the past decade, foreign direct investment has jumped from $569.3 billion in 2006 to $1,532.4 billion in 2016. Moreover, that figure is likely to continue growing, especially when we consider the number of announced ventures that have yet to come online. (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis)

http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing/

So we agree that Obama was wrong about manufacturing jobs not coming back. I guess now you expect me to to believe he is responsible for a turnaround in manufacturing. LOL!

Now, as for your phony (2016) statistics:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that manufacturers added 25,000 workers in December, extending the strong hiring gains in the sector seen throughout much of 2017. Manufacturing employment rose by 16,333 per month on average in 2017—quite a turnaround from the loss of 16,000 workers experienced in 2016. This is a sign that firms have stepped up their hiring as a result of a stronger economic outlook and increased demand and production activity.

http://www.shopfloor.org/2018/01/manufacturing-employment-solid-2017-improvements-economic-outlook/



There's the current facts - manufacturing is back! And it's no thanks to Barack Obama, no matter what you want to believe.

Now, do you have anything to say about any of the other things I mentioned? The fact remains that the economy is perking up under Trump in very significant ways. And despite not getting any legislation passed, the executive actions he has taken are precisely the reason. He has reduced regulations and the growth of government (like my boy Clinton). That (finally) ended the Bushbama big government "experiment." And it was an abject failure.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

You always tend to do that...twist what was said into something nowhere near. Who said the job losses would continue forever? They could certainly continue until we hit 1929 levels. We were on the verge of losing another million jobs if GM and Chrysler went under.

You credit Trump with an increase in manufacturing jobs. How do you suppose a manufacturing company decides to shut down manufacturing else where and suddenly ramps up in another country? Is that something you think happens in a few weeks? I've been in network support for a major computer company. Expansions are planned two or three quarters in advance.

Since GDP dropped 8% at the end of Bush's term and is climbing at the end of Obama's...that means things are better...not perfect.
View attachment 38151

The unemployment rate was fake while Obama was president, but the same sources of information suddenly became more reliable? Are you able to keep a straight face as you type that shit?

The national debt has increased by $400 billion in the last quarter. Annualized that means Trump is running up the debt by $1.6 trillion per year.

If Trump were truly a conservative he'd have maintained the tax rates, cleaned up the loopholes and paid down the deficit.

Because that is how it's always presented by you lefties - as if it would have continued at that rate if Obama hadn't been elected. So now are you willing to admit that the fact that job losses didn't continue at that pace had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's policies? In fact, in my opinion, his policies hobbled the economy kept the typical snapback recovery at bay:

But in general recessions associated with financial crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18194

The Great Depression and the recent recession stand out, though, both having increases in real GNP of about the same magnitude as the decreases. All the other recessions have increases noticeably greater than the decreases, indicating that the economy expanded more in the first two years after the end of the recession than it decreased during the recession.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/1110.aspx

Recent scholarly work has finally begun to draw a connection between Dodd-Frank and the weak economy of the last six years, and it appears that Dodd-Frank is indeed the culprit.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-slow-economic-recovery-explained/

I know, this is heresy to the lefties who worship at the feet of big government, and the academic economic "experts" who are its sycophants. Like Krugman:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/17/dow-crosses-23000-trump-record-krugman-predicted-recession-election-night

But it is what it is. LOL!

 

[Dawg]

Nope. Gopers didn't take over congress until Jan 5, 2011.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 7, 2011
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION DECEMBER 2010
The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.4 percent in December, and nonfarm payroll employment increased by 103,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01072011.pdf

Under Trump only 48k more jobs were created in Dec 2017 than in Dec 2010.
He promised to be the greatest job POTUS EVER ! Yet, even with the boost from Obama he fell short.

("Nope")
LMAO..........last 2 of Bush first 2 of O
YEP

damn it's exactly what I posted
dem/libs have lost 900+ seats since 2010

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Like I said, you wouldn’t understand.

Bottom line - 2017 jobs numbers under Trump were weaker than 2016 jobs numbers under Obama.

Deal with it.

;-)

That is a notoriously fickle data series. The fact is that the economy is picking up in very promising ways. There may have been less jobs created, but more of them were full time. Total labor hours are only tracked quarterly but if you look at this chart:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOANBS

From Q4 2015 to Q3 2016 it advanced from about 111.5 to about 112.5, and from Q4 2016 to Q3 2017, it went from 112.8 to 114.25. So labor hours were advancing faster than employment over the most recent four quarters, which is precisely what you would expect to see when GDP growth is (finally) returning to its pre-recession levels while so many discouraged workers had left the labor force. Companies have to offer full time work to attract workers. So add that to Trump's list of accomplishments - he has succeeded in reversing the Obama era trend toward more workers working fewer hours. The part-time, temporary economy is over...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

That is a notoriously fickle data series. The fact is that the economy is picking up in very promising ways. There may have been less jobs created, but more of them were full time. Total labor hours are only tracked quarterly but if you look at this chart:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOANBS

From Q4 2015 to Q3 2016 it advanced from about 111.5 to about 112.5, and from Q4 2016 to Q3 2017, it went from 112.8 to 114.25. So labor hours were advancing faster than employment over the most recent four quarters, which is precisely what you would expect to see when GDP growth is (finally) returning to its pre-recession levels while so many discouraged workers had left the labor force. Companies have to offer full time work to attract workers. So add that to Trump's list of accomplishments - he has succeeded in reversing the Obama era trend toward more workers working fewer hours. The part-time, temporary economy is over...

As I said above, Trump inherited a geometrically improving economy and near full employment. The improvement has continued. Trump did nothing to create the geometrically improvement that continued through his inauguration, despite his typically bizarre claim taking credit for it.

As always, Trump was born on 3rd base and he thinks he hit a triple. And Trump sycophants chant “Nice triple, Mr. President!”

;-)

 

[Spamature]

("Nope")
LMAO..........last 2 of Bush first 2 of O
YEP

damn it's exactly what I posted
dem/libs have lost 900+ seats since 2010

The election was in 2008 and he took office in Jan of 2009. This is from Dec 2010.

I guess you are easily confused.

Quit bragging about being take for a sucker by the GOP. They scammed you out of the seats with a promise to repeal the ACA. You all looked like dopes when you found out they never had a plan to do it. Boy were you taken for chumps.

 

[Dawg]

The election was in 2008 and he took office in Jan of 2009. This is from Dec 2010.

I guess you are easily confused.

Quit bragging about being take for a sucker by the GOP. The scammed you out of the seats with a promise to repeal the ACA. You all looked like dopes when you found out they never had a plan to do it. Boy were you taken for chumps.

dem/libs held majority last two (2) years of Bush and first two (2) years of Obama.................damn you're sharp.......2009-2011 is two (2) years.........DUH

Exactly what I said...........

Try re-reading that lib gibberish paragraph-----geeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus

 

[Spamature]

dem/libs held majority last two (2) years of Bush and first two (2) years of Obama.................damn you're sharp.......2009-2011 is two (2) years.........DUH

Exactly what I said...........

Try re-reading that lib gibberish paragraph-----geeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus

What is wrong with you ? This discussion is about the jobs numbers. Have you gone insane babbling about congress in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with congress. No I do not feel like re reading your gibberish. It was stupid the first time and I am sure nothing as changed to make it any less idiotic.

 

[middleview]

Because that is how it's always presented by you lefties - as if it would have continued at that rate if Obama hadn't been elected. So now are you willing to admit that the fact that job losses didn't continue at that pace had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's policies? In fact, in my opinion, his policies hobbled the economy kept the typical snapback recovery at bay:

But in general recessions associated with financial crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18194

The Great Depression and the recent recession stand out, though, both having increases in real GNP of about the same magnitude as the decreases. All the other recessions have increases noticeably greater than the decreases, indicating that the economy expanded more in the first two years after the end of the recession than it decreased during the recession.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/1110.aspx

Recent scholarly work has finally begun to draw a connection between Dodd-Frank and the weak economy of the last six years, and it appears that Dodd-Frank is indeed the culprit.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-slow-economic-recovery-explained/

I know, this is heresy to the lefties who worship at the feet of big government, and the academic economic "experts" who are its sycophants. Like Krugman:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/17/dow-crosses-23000-trump-record-krugman-predicted-recession-election-night

But it is what it is. LOL!

The great depression got worse....until FDR was elected. How many banks failed up until his bank holiday? How many after? Your bank failed? Sucks to be you. No FDIC.
My grandparents lost their farm. Your opinion is that it would have been ok for unemployment to continue to get worse...probably not if it was your family that was starving. By 1936 the unemployment rate was under 10%. In your addled mind that was not an improvement.

Snap back? What happened from 1981 to 1983? 10% unemployment...didn't come back to 7% until 1986. That was a pretty slow recovery, based on your view of the recovery under Obama.

As far as your comment about what I am willing to admit....you must be hearing voices again. I believe the stimulus did help. I think bailing out GM was the right thing to do. I think extending unemployment was correct and kept millions of people involved in the consumer economy.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

FoxNews forced to admit it. LOL

Fox News Research

✔ @FoxNewsResearch

Average Monthly #Job Gains
-by year

•2017: 171,000
•2016: 187,000
•2015: 226,000
•2014: 250,000
•2013: 192,000
•2012: 179,000
•2011: 174,000
•2010: 88,000#JobsReport

8:54 AM - Jan 5, 2018

Why do you think Fox News was "forced" to do anything?

 

[Dawg]

What is wrong with you ? This discussion is about the jobs numbers. Have you gone insane babbling about congress in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with congress. No I do not feel like re reading your gibberish. It was stupid the first time and I am sure nothing as changed to make it any less idiotic.

Congress makes the Laws, writes the checks........makes jobs

wasn't my post you needed re-read, it was yours full of broke English

 

[justoffal]

A new standard in lameness - suggesting we ignore average jobs growth during the Obama years and focus instead on the tail end of the epic GWB near-depression.

Textbook mindless hackery.

;-)

No it's not .... Your knowledge of statistical cumulative growth rate is completely absent.....as usual.

It was actually easy .... in fact effortless for Obama to pile up part-time poverty paychecks coming out the Wall Street's sabotage of the global economy
In 2008. It is a completely different ballgame to add living wage jobs to an already active job market.

It is a totally different kind of growth
And is qualitatively superior to the barn droppings of the book cookers and information hackers from 08-16.

 

[Dawg]

No it's not .... Your knowledge of statistical cumulative growth rate is completely absent.....as usual.

It was actually easy .... in fact effortless for Obama to pile up part-time poverty paychecks coming out the Wall Street's sabotage of the global economy
In 2008. It is a completely different ballgame to add living wage jobs to an already active job market.

It is a totally different kind of growth
And is qualitatively superior to the barn droppings of the book cookers and information hackers from 08-16.

Inventing Gov Agencies and filling them with do nothing employees is jobs libs are posting of.........

suckas

 

[Spamature]

Congress makes the Laws, writes the checks........makes jobs

wasn't my post you needed re-read, it was yours full of broke English

Trump didn't promise congress would be the greatest job creator ever.

You'er just hungry. Losing debates does that to you, Peanut.

 

[EatTheRich]

Inventing Gov Agencies and filling them with do nothing employees is jobs libs are posting of.........

suckas

Yet public sector employment was cut sharply under Obama ... all the jobs gains came from the private sector.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The great depression got worse....until FDR was elected. How many banks failed up until his bank holiday? How many after? Your bank failed? Sucks to be you. No FDIC.
My grandparents lost their farm. Your opinion is that it would have been ok for unemployment to continue to get worse...probably not if it was your family that was starving. By 1936 the unemployment rate was under 10%. In your addled mind that was not an improvement.

Snap back? What happened from 1981 to 1983? 10% unemployment...didn't come back to 7% until 1986. That was a pretty slow recovery, based on your view of the recovery under Obama.

As far as your comment about what I am willing to admit....you must be hearing voices again. I believe the stimulus did help. I think bailing out GM was the right thing to do. I think extending unemployment was correct and kept millions of people involved in the consumer economy.

So now you are back to suggesting that the job losses/GDP decline will continue apace indefinitely in such situations until a Democrat is elected. This is absurd. You act like the economy is a hostile life force with a mind of its own that must be defeated in such situations by high minded bureaucrats who will swoop in and save us from the economic monster created by the "evil" capitalists.

Your grandparents lost their farm because they chose to borrow money on it (that they couldn't repay), not because a bank failed. The banks were failing because they over lent to people like your grandparents, not because evil capitalists stole their money. The more a government tries to do to "make things right" the more distorted economic incentives get and the less investment and expansion you will see. That's a fact! You lefties used to be able to claim the "Great Depression" was "different." Now we have a second example of similar economic "treatments" applied by a big government progressive (Keynesian) to "help" the people "harmed" by the evil capitalists and we again lost a full decade of growth. We now know the cure is worse than the disease. And no, I'm not taking your one anecdote about one economic statistic in the early 80s as a refutation of the many scholarly studies that document the fact that the economy typically "snaps back" after a downturn; in fact has done so in every case with growth exceeding the decline, save these two periods of progressive economic interventionism.

And I already know that all the bad policy decisions are the ones you support, which is why I chuckle every time you opine on this topic. You want the government to increase subsidies to people for not working. Subsidies to failing companies to keep production above the levels of demand. And increased government spending to oversee and administer it all, to ensure that wealth is even more redistributed from the successful to the unsuccessful. And then you want us to blame the prior guy for why the economic recovery process is delayed and depressed? It is perfectly obvious that this isn't so, when you think about it logically. Which, apparently, you don't.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science - you just need to remove the bad business and political decisions that created the conditions that led to the recession, as quickly as possible. FDR was preceded by the guy referred to AT THE TIME as "the father of the new deal." Instead of reversing his mistakes, he doubled down on them (and put them on steroids). Same deal with Obama. You want us to believe the fake history that Bush was a "free market" economic (classical) liberal. In fact he grew government, increased regulations, and began the subsidizing of failure when the recession hit. Obama came in and doubled down on those policy preferences, and, in fact, put them on steroids. And THAT is why we didn't get the "snap back" recovery that followed every other downturn in our (modern) history. And we know this as a fact because all Trump had to do was start rolling back those policy preferences (YOUR policy preferences) and we immediately started seeing the most important economic internals - manufacturing activity, investment in small business, full time employment, etc. SNAP back to pre-recession levels. The last thing we need at this point are economic revisionists like you calling the political shots.