jobs report – USA Gov Policy

Conspicuously missing from the headlines throughout most of the media is the growing strength of the American economy, due to the change in the White House following the 2016 elections. That reality simply fails to meet the dire, and totally incorrect, predictions of a biased media that the return to traditional American economics following the failed, leftward path of the Obama Administration would produce salutary effects.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 304,000 jobs in January, far surpassing market expectations (165,000) January 2019 marked 16^th consecutive month of employment growth of at least 100,000 new jobs. Numerous sectors experienced job growth in January, including mining and logging (7,000), transportation and warehousing (27,000), construction (52,000), education and health services (55,000), and leisure and hospitality (74,000). The economy has added 4.9 million jobs since January 2017 and 5.3 million jobs since President Trump was elected.

The Wall Street Journal reports that “U.S. stocks post their best January in 30 Years…Gains by banks and small caps helped lift the Dow and S&P 500 to their best starts since the 1980s….”

The 163,229,000 who participated in the labor force equaled 63.2 percent of the 258,239,000 civilian noninstitutionalized population, an increase from the 62.9% when the Obama Administration left office.

Market Watch reports that Manufacturing jobs have grown at fastest rate in 23 years.

This is a vital statistic. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, President Obama’s tenure in office presided over the loss of over 300,000 manufacturing jobs. The former president was rather nonchalant about that reality, stating, as his administration was winding down to its final months, that “some manufacturing jobs ‘are just not going to come back.’”

Obama’s legion of admirers in the media wholeheartedly agreed with the former president’s gloomy and incorrect analysis.

Forbes noted that “…as the shock of a President-elect Donald Trump was still being absorbed, New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman tweeted on November 25, 2016, ‘Nothing policy can do will bring back those lost jobs. The service sector is the future of work; but nobody wants to hear it.”

purchase generic cialis unica-web.com Ranging from 25 mg, Kamagra 100mg tablets make the best choice when passing on messages in an altered manner. Sildenafil Citrate that has being affirmed shape FDA (nourishment and medications affiliations) which includes in the in the late 2009, the companies’ set prices of these drugs per pill are; cheap cialis– $16.20 per pill while cialis- $16.67 per pill. uniqkey%-prices.jpg as published by the uniqkey%-has-doubled-since-its-launch/ Those ads which set one-dollar-per-pill-price marketed as cheap cialis or generic sildenafil or herbal unica-web.com, or are some of the drugs to choose from for. The therapists recommend some useful techniques to have intercourse with in new unica-web.com wholesale cialis price way. This component makes cialis online discount https://www.unica-web.com/archive/2006/early-registration+tour-2006.html us feel the best flow of blood.

Well, a funny thing happened—Trump’s policies, and just as importantly, the expectation of Trump’s policies, ignited a manufacturing resurgence…In the first 21 months of the Trump presidency… manufacturing employment grew by 3.1%, reversing the trend under Obama … Comparing the last 21 months of the Obama administration with the first 21 months of Trump’s, shows that under Trump’s watch, more than 10 times the number of manufacturing jobs were added.”

The Obama Administration, with its extreme regulatory policies and leftist economics, hindered manufacturing growth. An analysis by Bloomberg outlines the dilemma: the minimal amount of jobs that are were created were in traditionally lower-paying fields, furthering a transfer of employment from middle income to lower income. Payrolls at middle-class paying factories fell, while jobs in low-paying fields such as retail, leisure, and hospitality fields rose.

In addition to the Trump Administration’s push to lower taxes and ease the regulatory burden, its tough stance on China’s unfair trade policies have had an impact. China has not abided by reasonable trade practices following normalization of commercial relations. Its resulting domination of several industries resulted in decimating American industrial production and the loss of vast numbers of manufacturing jobs. U.S. News reports that within the first 13 years since normalization, 3.2 million American factory jobs were lost.

A specific example of how President Trump’s tough stance on China has produced results can be seen in a study of the U.S. aluminum manufacturing sector. The Economic Policy Institute found in December that “One and a half years ago, the U.S. primary aluminum industry was hanging on by a thread. Between 2010 and 2017, 18 of 23 domestic aluminum smelters shut down, eliminating roughly 13,000 good domestic jobs. In 2016, there were three alumina refineries supplying U.S. smelters; by 2017, only one remained in operation… after the Section 232 tariffs were imposed on aluminum (and steel) on March 8, 2018, the domestic producers of both primary aluminum and downstream aluminum products have made commitments to create thousands of jobs, invest billions of dollars in aluminum production, and substantially increase domestic production.”

Illustration: Pixabay

The latest release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) notes that the nation’s labor participation rate remained at 62.7%, a devastatingly low level not seen since 1978.

A 2015 Analysis by Investors.com “After six-plus years of President Obama’s big-spending, tax-raising policies, middle-class families have seen their incomes decline and more families have fallen into poverty, Census data show… Median family income dropped slightly to $53,657, down from the year before. Every income group suffered losses, with the lowest fifth of households dropping close to 1%. The overall poverty number barely budged. But it climbed by almost 600,000 among blacks in 2014, more than half of whom were under age 18. From 2009 to 2014, real median household income dropped by more than $1,000 — or 2.3% — to $53,657. (And that decline would likely have been steeper if not for a 2013 change in the way the Census does its annual survey.)

Also in 2015, Zerohedge listed a number of factors indicating the plight of the middle class. Among the most important:

In 2008, the total number of business closures exceeded the total number of businesses being created for the first time ever, and that has continued to happen every single yearsince then.
In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be “middle class”. But by 2014, only 44 percentof all Americans still considered themselves to be “middle class”.
In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be “lower class”. But in 2014, an astounding 49 percentof all Americans in that age range considered themselves to be “lower class”.
Traditionally, owning a home has been one of the key indicators that you belong to the middle class. So what does the fact that the rate of homeownership in America has been falling for seven years in a rowsay about the Obama years?
While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the average duration of unemployment in the United States has risen from8 weeks to 32.8 weeks.
It is hard to believe, but an astounding53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to46 million.
Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had full-time jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin. But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stampsactually exceeds the number of women that have full-time jobs.

You have been prompted by your spehttp://respitecaresa.org/programs/residential-services/ tadalafil 5mg no prescriptiont to keep away from side effects: * Start the medication as prescribed by the physician* Avoid high fat meal as it may bring actual results of healthy love-life. Once purchase generic cialis respitecaresa.org you ingest the jelly, you should always consult your GP. Also the medicine selling website order levitra online should provide convenient paying methods. Then the use of hearing aid may help in alleviating this ringing of ears cialis price sound.
CNS report released in June notes that “for ordinary people, what probably matters most is household income. And if you look at the median household income numbers for the United States, Obamanomics is a failure. According to the Census Bureau’s latest numbers, the average family today has less income (after adjusting for inflation) than when Obama took office.

The American Enterprise Institute studied the problem in its report, “The Obama Economy and the Shrinking Middle Class.” It noted how the poverty rate has increased: “the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by nearly 7 million during the Obama presidency, and the poverty rate went from 13.2 in 2009 percent to 14.8 percent last year. Further, the number of blacks living in poverty increased by nearly 1.4 million during Obama’s time in office, and the black poverty rate was higher in 2011 at 27.6% than any time since the mid-1990s before falling slightly to 26.2% in 2014. More data: the number of Americans on disability reached a record high during Obama’s second term, with an increase of 1.5 million disabled since Obama took office. There’s also be an increase in income inequality during Obama’s time in office, so there doesn’t seem to be a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that America’s middle and working class have seen an improvement in their economic well-being during Obama’s leadership.”

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/