Wow, the left is talking about the national debt and throwing a faux -fit.
While Obama adding more to the national debt than all previous 43 Presidents combined we heard nothing from the left.
Okay, President Trump and The Republican’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act might add about $1.5 Trillion to the national debt. However, the growth in GDP because of the strong economy the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will bring will easily wipeout that $1.5 Trillion.
Yet again The American People, President Trump and The Republicans score another major win and the lefties just lie can cry.
In fairness a good bit of the debt added under Obama was actually set in stone from the last few Bush years. Obama inherited a mess of epic proportions, but the ship did get turned around. Trump was set up for success. Now maybe the growth under Obama was slower or smaller than ideal, but it was a growing economy none-the-less and Trump should benefit from that. Which is much different than what GW or Obama inherited upon taking office.
The U.S. economy was anemic at best under Obama and he added more to the national debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined.
With President Trump's election the economy took off fast due to great leadership, confidence and a solid plan all of which were missing under Obama.
Wow, the left is talking about the national debt and throwing a faux -fit.
While Obama adding more to the national debt than all previous 43 Presidents combined we heard nothing from the left.
Okay, President Trump and The Republican’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act might add about $1.5 Trillion to the national debt. However, the growth in GDP because of the strong economy the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will bring will easily wipeout that $1.5 Trillion.
Yet again The American People, President Trump and The Republicans score another major win and the lefties just lie can cry.
In fairness a good bit of the debt added under Obama was actually set in stone from the last few Bush years. Obama inherited a mess of epic proportions, but the ship did get turned around. Trump was set up for success. Now maybe the growth under Obama was slower or smaller than ideal, but it was a growing economy none-the-less and Trump should benefit from that. Which is much different than what GW or Obama inherited upon taking office.
The U.S. economy was anemic at best under Obama and he added more to the national debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined.
With President Trump's election the economy took off fast due to great leadership, confidence and a solid plan all of which were missing under Obama.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these lies, they still remain lies.
Wow, the left is talking about the national debt and throwing a faux -fit.
While Obama adding more to the national debt than all previous 43 Presidents combined we heard nothing from the left.
Okay, President Trump and The Republican’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act might add about $1.5 Trillion to the national debt. However, the growth in GDP because of the strong economy the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will bring will easily wipeout that $1.5 Trillion.
Yet again The American People, President Trump and The Republicans score another major win and the lefties just lie can cry.
In fairness a good bit of the debt added under Obama was actually set in stone from the last few Bush years. Obama inherited a mess of epic proportions, but the ship did get turned around. Trump was set up for success. Now maybe the growth under Obama was slower or smaller than ideal, but it was a growing economy none-the-less and Trump should benefit from that. Which is much different than what GW or Obama inherited upon taking office.
The U.S. economy was anemic at best under Obama and he added more to the national debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined.
With President Trump's election the economy took off fast due to great leadership, confidence and a solid plan all of which were missing under Obama.It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these lies, they still remain lies.
How would you know?
You have posted lie after lie and have been proven to be one of the leading uninformed here.
The facts prove the President Trump economy is rocking.
The U.S. economy was anemic at best under Obama and he added more to the national debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined.
Fake news. Our economy has been improving steadily since 2009.
With President Trump's election the economy took off fast due to great leadership, confidence and a solid plan all of which were missing under Obama.
Missing? Obamacare was built with such a strong foundation, that even your king couldn’t knock it down. Plus, he passed it without having full Democratic control in Washington. Trump has a fully Republican Washington and STILL couldn’t repeal nor replaced. Obama got more votes in each election too. Trump can’t hold Obama’s jock strap. Trump is old, ugly, and was rejected by women in school, just like you! I’d hate Obama too if I was Trump.
The U.S. economy was anemic at best under Obama and he added more to the national debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined.
Fake news. Our economy has been improving steadily since 2009.
With President Trump's election the economy took off fast due to great leadership, confidence and a solid plan all of which were missing under Obama.
Missing? Obamacare was built with such a strong foundation, that even your king couldn’t knock it down. Plus, he passed it without having full Democratic control in Washington. Trump has a fully Republican Washington and STILL couldn’t repeal nor replaced. Obama got more votes in each election too. Trump can’t hold Obama’s jock strap. Trump is old, ugly, and was rejected by women in school, just like you! I’d hate Obama too if I was Trump.
Without full Democratic control?
This ofcourse is not the case. After the 2008 elections, the Democrats had a 257-199 edge in the House and a 57-41 edge in the Senate (plus two Independents who were essentially Democrats), they were 1 vote short of a filibuster proof majority, which they got in 2009. How is that not "full Democratic control"?
I stand corrected. The point remains - Obama is the person Trump so desperately wants to be, but isn’t, and that enrages him. Sad!
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.
If he was delivering for the American people, you would think the DJI gains would have been better than the international markets, but sadly we lag behind the rest of the world. But hey, congrats to Trump for getting as close to Obama's gains over his first year. As with everything else, Trump failed to spur the market over his first year as well as Obama did. But I at least give credit to Trump for not completely destroying the economy - yet..
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.
Well, for a few of the American people:
"There is, however, an important question I neglected to cover in that last piece: Who benefits from the increase in stock market wealth? Thanks to the work of economist Ed Wolff, who has been compiling such data over many years, we can answer that question.
First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so. Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.
But even that 46 percent ownership rate gets misunderstood, because it doesn’t differentiate how much stock is owned by different income classes. Less than a third of all households hold at least $10,000 in stocks, compared to 93 percent of those households in the top 1 percent.
The figures below show that, since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent. Within that top 10 percent, the share of stock wealth held by the top 1 percent is about equal to the share held by the 90-99th percentiles; both groups’ shares are twice as large as the share that the entire bottom 90 percent holds."
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.Well, for a few of the American people:
"There is, however, an important question I neglected to cover in that last piece: Who benefits from the increase in stock market wealth? Thanks to the work of economist Ed Wolff, who has been compiling such data over many years, we can answer that question.
First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so. Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.
But even that 46 percent ownership rate gets misunderstood, because it doesn’t differentiate how much stock is owned by different income classes. Less than a third of all households hold at least $10,000 in stocks, compared to 93 percent of those households in the top 1 percent.
The figures below show that, since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent. Within that top 10 percent, the share of stock wealth held by the top 1 percent is about equal to the share held by the 90-99th percentiles; both groups’ shares are twice as large as the share that the entire bottom 90 percent holds."
"First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so."
The premise of the opinion piece you posted is crap.
There is no factual data in the entire spin piece and the writer is a well known far-left extremist.
The performance of the stock market has a direct effect on the retirement funds of the American People and the stock market has soared since the day Donald Trump was elected.
President Trump and the Republicans deliver major Tax Cut and Jobs Act
Lube Your a**holes............Peace.........joe
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.Well, for a few of the American people:
"There is, however, an important question I neglected to cover in that last piece: Who benefits from the increase in stock market wealth? Thanks to the work of economist Ed Wolff, who has been compiling such data over many years, we can answer that question.
First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so. Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.
But even that 46 percent ownership rate gets misunderstood, because it doesn’t differentiate how much stock is owned by different income classes. Less than a third of all households hold at least $10,000 in stocks, compared to 93 percent of those households in the top 1 percent.
The figures below show that, since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent. Within that top 10 percent, the share of stock wealth held by the top 1 percent is about equal to the share held by the 90-99th percentiles; both groups’ shares are twice as large as the share that the entire bottom 90 percent holds."
"First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so."
The premise of the opinion piece you posted is crap.
There is no factual data in the entire spin piece and the writer is a well known far-left extremist.The performance of the stock market has a direct effect on the retirement funds of the American People and the stock market has soared since the day Donald Trump was elected.
The stock market has soared since 2009.
Dow Jones
S&P 500
NASDAQ
And when it was going up under Obama, you right wingers were saying the President has nothing to do with it.
So which is it? Does the President have any effect on the stock market or not?
"my President did it"
"no my President did it"
"my President did it"
"no my President did it"
I am not trying to say that at all. There are many things that go into how the stock market performs. Who is president is far down on the list. My point was to show that this bull market has been going on for almost 8 years. It has nothing to do with Trump.
"my President did it"
"no my President did it"
I am not trying to say that at all. There are many things that go into how the stock market performs. Who is president is far down on the list. My point was to show that this bull market has been going on for almost 8 years. It has nothing to do with Trump.
I'll give credit to Trump for continuing the upward swing in the market that started almost 9 years ago. But how big a deal is that really? I didn't hear Republicans praising Obama for similar or better stock market performances for 8 years, so why is the stock market performance now something to crow about? Same thing with Trump taking credit for the FAA safety record over the last year. He had nothing to do with it, and their weren't any fatal commercial accidents over the last 4 years, so how is this a major win for Trump? I guess Trump forgot to Tweet about coal mine fatalities surging this year after the rollback in safety regulations. Now that one he can take credit for.
[Edited on 1/5/2018 by 2112]
President's will get blame or credit for being in the right or wrong place at any given time. And in our case, Trump will take credit for everything. The "Trump Bump", the optimism on tax cuts, expectation of less regulatory and compliance costs, pro-growth policy...I think sometimes they give us these reasons after the fact, the prognosticators never really know why something is happening in the moment.
There are factors contributing to the gains in the Obama years and the Trump years which are both similar and are different. In the end I would probably thank "the business cycle" more than anything. We just need to remember, the business cycle giveth and can taketh away. But President's can get blamed for that too, rightfully or wrongly.
A growing stock market is a good thing. Sigh, even if all those greedy no good SOB wealthy people are going to experience more growth than the average Joe's 401K, people who do have some skin in the market feel better financially when the markets are doing well and they log into their accounts or get their statements in the mail.
Another thing that I think is very important and rarely discussed are the defined benefit pension plans which have assets invested in the markets. Any growth in these plans are not passed on or seen by the recipients, however, the strength and longevity of these plans relies heavily on a growing collection of investments to meet future obligations.
The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.
During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.
History proves them wrong again.
Meanwhile…
The US economy added 148K jobs in December and manufacturing remains strong.
The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, the lowest rate in more than 17 years. The average hourly earnings increased again.
The jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed that 250,000 private sector jobs were added in December, up from 185,000 in November.
Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1.77 million private sector jobs have been created, and average hourly wages for the private sector have increased by 62 cents, or 2.4%.
This is of course prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act becoming law resulting and wages and bonuses surging.
The DJI closed at 25,075.13 today.
President Trump keeps delivering for The American People.Well, for a few of the American people:
"There is, however, an important question I neglected to cover in that last piece: Who benefits from the increase in stock market wealth? Thanks to the work of economist Ed Wolff, who has been compiling such data over many years, we can answer that question.
First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so. Wolff’s data shows that while stock ownership has increased over the past few decades, in 2013 (his most recent data point), less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.
But even that 46 percent ownership rate gets misunderstood, because it doesn’t differentiate how much stock is owned by different income classes. Less than a third of all households hold at least $10,000 in stocks, compared to 93 percent of those households in the top 1 percent.
The figures below show that, since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent. Within that top 10 percent, the share of stock wealth held by the top 1 percent is about equal to the share held by the 90-99th percentiles; both groups’ shares are twice as large as the share that the entire bottom 90 percent holds."
"First, there’s a bit of a myth that through indirect holdings, like holdings of stock in a pension fund, the stock market has become democratized, and everyone’s all in. Not so."
The premise of the opinion piece you posted is crap.
There is no factual data in the entire spin piece and the writer is a well known far-left extremist.The performance of the stock market has a direct effect on the retirement funds of the American People and the stock market has soared since the day Donald Trump was elected.
Your usual.."but the source" bullsh!t argument..... there are plenty of sources that say the same thing:
From Gallup:
Before the 2008 financial crisis, 62% of U.S. adults, on average, said they owned stocks. Since then, the average has been 54%, including lows of 52% in 2013 and 2016. In Gallup's April 2017 update, 54% of Americans report having money invested in stocks.
The stock market lost more than half of its value during the bear market that coincided with the Great Recession and 2008 financial crisis, with many investors responding by taking their money out of the market. Although the stock market has more than made up for those losses, reaching record highs this year, Gallup's data indicate that fewer Americans today are in a position to benefit from those gains.
U.S. stock ownership rates are highly related to income, ranging from 21% among those with an annual household income of less than $30,000 to 89% among those with an income of $100,000 or more. Americans in all income groups below $100,000 are less likely to own stocks than they were from 2001 to 2008. This includes a drop of six percentage points among lower-income households, 13 points among middle-income households (annual income of $30,000 to $74,999) and 10 points among upper-middle-income households (annual income of $75,000 to $99,999).
Given that relatively few Americans in lower-income households invested in stocks before the 2008 financial crisis and upper-income households show no change in ownership, it follows that middle- and upper-middle-income households have largely driven the decline in stock ownership.
Stock ownership also varies by age, perhaps because middle-aged Americans are in their peak earning years. On average, 62% of U.S. adults aged 30 to 64 own stocks, compared with 31% of those aged 18 to 29 and 54% of those aged 65 and older. Older Americans are no less likely now to invest in the stock market than they were from 2001 to 2008, while younger age groups show declines of between seven and 11 percentage points.
This lack of decline among older adults could reflect that the leading edge of baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1952) have moved into the 65+ age category since the 2008 crisis. As a generation, baby boomers -- all of whom were in their prime working years during the economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s, and many of whom likely had 401(k)s at work -- have above-average rates of stock ownership.
Implications
The stock market has performed well in 2017, but proportionately fewer Americans are benefiting from today's bull market than did so in bull markets before the financial crisis. The gains in stock values in recent years seem to have done little to persuade people who may have divested themselves of stocks to get back in the market.
Nor has the recovery encouraged new investors to join the market. Although young adults are understandably less likely than their elders to own stocks, the percentage of 18- to 29-year-olds investing is down 11 points since before the financial crisis.
It appears the financial crisis and recession may have fundamentally changed some Americans' views of stocks as an investment. The collapse in stock values in 2008 and 2009 seems to have left a greater impression on these people than the ongoing bull market that has followed it, as well as research showing the strong historical performance of stocks as a long-term investment.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher-income.aspx
Most people in minimum wage jobs do not have pensions or 401k's - also a lot of people in "small business" also don't have them - and the Trump administration made it harder on them by gutting state IRA programs that would have helped them.
More sources:
http://www.mybudget360.com/stock-market-sham-most-americans-own-no-stocks-who-owns-us-wealth/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-econom-stock-market-americans-20171219-story.html
I would post more, but you won't read or understand them anyway......
The US economy added 148K jobs in December and manufacturing remains strong. The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, the lowest rate in more than 17 years. The average hourly earnings increased again.
This was proven to be false. You have no sources, as usual.
The jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed that 250,000 private sector jobs were added in December, up from 185,000 in November.
Obama had better numbers - look it up.
Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1.77 million private sector jobs have been created, and average hourly wages for the private sector have increased by 62 cents, or 2.4%.
This is of course prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act becoming law resulting and wages and bonuses surging.
This is a complete lie, and you have no source to back it up. Pathetic.
[Edited on 1/5/2018 by BoytonBrother]
The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.
During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.
History proves them wrong again.
How is it historic when the rise in the stock market is less than we saw under Obama in his first term? Like I said, I'm happy the stock market has continued its 9 year bull run under Trump. Not sure why you think continued performance is something to scream from the hilltops. I don't think you raved and posted about the similar stock market performance under Obama.
But, what do you think of the surge in coal mining deaths this year? Now that is something that Trump can actually take credit for.
quote:The US economy added 148K jobs in December and manufacturing remains strong. The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, the lowest rate in more than 17 years. The average hourly earnings increased again.
This was proven to be false. You have no sources, as usual.
Was proven to be false? The top of the hour news break on the Thom Hartmann show just did a blurb about 148,000 jobs in December and the 4.1% unemployment being the lowest in 17 years. This would be on the Progress Sirius/XM radio station you may be familiar with. Must you be so quick to call everything muleman posts as incorrect?
There are many fresh news stories with all this data:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/december-2017-jobs-report/index.html
http://time.com/5089477/december-jobs-report-2017/
quote:The jobs numbers come on the heels of a report Thursday from payroll processing firm ADP, which revealed that 250,000 private sector jobs were added in December, up from 185,000 in November.
Obama had better numbers - look it up.
What time frame are you comparing?
quote:Since the 2016 presidential election, more than 1.77 million private sector jobs have been created, and average hourly wages for the private sector have increased by 62 cents, or 2.4%.
This is of course prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act becoming law resulting and wages and bonuses surging.This is a complete lie, and you have no source to back it up. Pathetic.
A complete lie?
Don't really want to do Muleman's work for him, but I had some time so...his source appears to be:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/12/08/us-economy-adds-more-jobs-in-november-than-expected.html
Here's mine, 2 million jobs this year isn't bad, or a lie.
The U.S. economy added 2 million jobs in 2017, another solid year of gains.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/december-2017-jobs-report/index.html
Wages and bonuses surging...the universe of US corporations is massive, this story offers some insight on a few of the happenings which have been in the news - the overall impact beyond these examples may or may not be minimal. Plenty of speculation both ways.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/corporate-tax-cut-bonuses-employees.html
[Edited on 1/5/2018 by nebish]
quote:The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.
During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.
History proves them wrong again.
How is it historic when the rise in the stock market is less than we saw under Obama in his first term? Like I said, I'm happy the stock market has continued its 9 year bull run under Trump. Not sure why you think continued performance is something to scream from the hilltops. I don't think you raved and posted about the similar stock market performance under Obama.
But, what do you think of the surge in coal mining deaths this year? Now that is something that Trump can actually take credit for.
Are you comparing Obama's first term to Trump's first year?
The two periods however are not comparable in the first place since Obama came into office at a much different time than Trump. One could say the market's only had one way to go but up under Obama, although view is that it could've gotten worse.
But Trump stepped into a glorious situation in comparison, as you say a run of growth. Has that growth been fueled by Trump or would we have gotten similar results had Clinton had won? How can we ever know?
Now we blame Trump for more coal mining deaths. This is interesting. To what do you feel compelled to blame this on him for?
quote:The Stock Market’s historic rise under President Trump has the over 100 Million Americans that have an IRA or 401K laughing at the lefties.
During the 2016 campaign the Democrats said if Donald Trump is elected the stock market would crash and the economy would tank.
History proves them wrong again.
How is it historic when the rise in the stock market is less than we saw under Obama in his first term? Like I said, I'm happy the stock market has continued its 9 year bull run under Trump. Not sure why you think continued performance is something to scream from the hilltops. I don't think you raved and posted about the similar stock market performance under Obama.
But, what do you think of the surge in coal mining deaths this year? Now that is something that Trump can actually take credit for.
Are you comparing Obama's first term to Trump's first year?
The two periods however are not comparable in the first place since Obama came into office at a much different time than Trump. One could say the market's only had one way to go but up under Obama, although view is that it could've gotten worse.
But Trump stepped into a glorious situation in comparison, as you say a run of growth. Has that growth been fueled by Trump or would we have gotten similar results had Clinton had won? How can we ever know?
Now we blame Trump for more coal mining deaths. This is interesting. To what do you feel compelled to blame this on him for?
We can never know what would have happened under Clinton, but the stock market growth under Trump is a continuation of continued growth for the past 8+ years. It is not exactly historic. I'm giving Trump some credit here, certainly more credit than most on the right gave Obama with similar or better results.
And yes, Trump rolled back safety regulations in the coal industry, and there was a surge in coal mining deaths. Easy to put 2 and 2 together here.
Oh, and Mule was bragging in this thread about 1.77 million new private sector jobs. Well, it is even better than that. 2.1 million new jobs were added in 2017. Sounds good, right? The problem is that that is a 6 year low. There were 2.2 million new jobs added in 2016.
"Over the year [2017], job growth totaled 2.1 million, compared with a gain of 2.2 million in 2016."
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf
And here's a chart of job growth since 2007:
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
2017 showed the slowest job growth rate of the past 6 years. But hey, 1.77 million new jobs sounds great, so let's use that number to brag about how great Trump is doing. But we didn't hear these same people congratulating Obama for adding jobs at a greater rate the previous 5 years. Again, I don't necessarily believe that the economy is doing bad under Trump. If Obama or any other president had these same numbers I wouldn't be complaining. However, I certainly wouldn't trying to convince anyone that the economy is doing better than it has been when the numbers don't reflect that at all.
[Edited on 1/6/2018 by 2112]
I think there are some specific points that could be made to tie Trump actions or inactions to some issues in the coal mining deaths, I don't think it is quite easy to put 2 and 2 together.
I read some of the accident reports. The one new hire didn't treat his empty dump bed with de-icing solution before being loaded, despite being told that very morning to do so, then when he went to dump the load it stuck and tipped the truck over, the driver jumped out and later died from his injuries. That isn't Trump's fault, not sure what level of training or workplace inspections could've or would've prevented that.
But another guy with 23 years experience was was working underneath a conveyor belt became tangled in the moving mechanism and was victim of an unfortunate and sad death. There was fencing in the area, but not enough safety guards to prevent a worker from getting directly under the belt to remove the coal dust build up. Inspections could've caught this, but also the worker put himself in a dangerous position to work it - something miners sometimes do on their own, risking themselves to perform a dangerous task.
Again, I don't see enough blame to lay at Trump's feet in guilt on these deaths. But there is enough to question the direction of the administration on the direction of their interest in miner safety.
Thank you for the links on the labor stats. The first one pdf looks good and I will sort through it. The second link doesn't work however.
Thank you for the links on the labor stats. The first one pdf looks good and I will sort through it. The second link doesn't work however.
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
Not sure why. It worked earlier. How about this?
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth/blockquote >
Yes, that has led me to play with some other charts and tools. Fun to see all the different info these sites have.
I think I may've found an even better one that illustrates your point 2112!
Not sure why my CNN Money article did not draw the comparison between the 2016 vs 2017 number? Or point out the streak of 2+ million annual growth we've been experiencing...I mean they are so biased right, why not take this chance to show Obama in a good light and discount the Trump figures - wait, that is what the Whipping Post is for 😉
I like seeing source data shown on your first bls pdf link rather than reading it in a news publication (I mean we know these news links can't be trusted 😛
The annual growth / loss in manufacturing is pretty stark. 2017 saw the sector add 196,000 while 2016 had a 16,000 loss. Retail lost 67,000 in 2017, but had gained 203,000 in 2016. Those are some big swings. As is mining and logging with a gain of 59,000 vs a 2016 loss of 75,000.
