Since Liberals Ignored It, Let's Look at the Dept. of Labor-BLS Jobs Report for Last Month

[blastoff]

196,000 jobs is a train wreck, it was while Obama was President U3 and U6 are made up statistics by BLS. Our President has told us so. The actual number of unemployed is 170 million Americans

LOL! Yeah, okay. Thanks for sharing. Go get your brain reset so that the "Warning: Facts Being Presented" notice in your brain will turn off.

FYI, none other than Bernie Sanders has said that the U-6 is the most accurate measurement of the employment situation. He made this point several times during the 2016 primary.

U6 is Fake News
Our President told us so
Bernie Sanders is a commie
Our President told us so

The real number of unemployed is over 50 percent.

C’mon quit hogging. Take a hit and pass it along.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Just so we're clear: Liberals trot out the meaningless statistic of federal revenue as a percentage of GDP any time revenue rises after a major tax cut, as if somehow the revenue's percentage of GDP affects its value. They did this when federal revenue rose sharply under Reagan and Bush Jr. after their tax cuts, contrary to liberal predictions, and they're doing it now because federal revenue has risen after the Trump tax cuts.

You just love to post lies, I will give you that. Though I wonder if you are too stupid to know they are lies.

You are projecting onto me what you do.

Revenue did not rise sharply after the tax cuts of Reagan, Bush II or Trump.

The 10 years prior to the Reagan tax cuts revenue grew at a rate of 12.41% per year, the 10 years after the Reagan tax cuts revenue grew at a rate of 5.68% per year. The tax cuts slowed revenue growth.

LOL! Soooooo, even according to your unsourced numbers, revenue DID rise after the Reagan tax cuts! It just didn't rise as much as before, but look at the difference in the economy's performance! Sheesh, are you joking? Plus, Americans got to keep a lot more of their own money under Reagan than they did for the previous 10 years. But you don't care about that. You only care about how much money the government gets. Do you think everyone else is so dumb that they won't see through your silly argument?

The 10 years prior to the Bush tax cuts revenue grew at a rate of 6.61% per year, the 10 years after the Bush tax cuts revenue grew at a rate of 1.87% per year. The tax cuts slowed revenue growth.

LOL again. Yeah, sooooo, even according to your unsourced numbers, revenue rose after the Bush tax cuts, while at the same time they allowed Americans to keep a whole more of their earnings. I know you don't care about that, but it's worth noting again. I'd be curious to know the source for your numbers, because from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

Tax revenue the 12 months prior to the Trump tax cuts was $ 3,343,634,000,000, tax revenue the 12 months after the Trump tax cuts was $ 3,330,470,000,000.

Since math is not your thing, that is a drop of $13,164,000,000 for the 12 months after the tax cuts as compared to the 12 months before.

Oh, I'll put my math skills up against yours any day, partner, not to mention my honesty and objectivity, both of which you severely lack. Where are you getting your numbers? Here are the numbers I have found for federal revenue, and they're from a liberal source:

• FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion. (Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

LOL! Soooooo, even according to your unsourced numbers, revenue DID rise after the Reagan tax cuts!

...

LOL again. Yeah, sooooo, even according to your unsourced numbers, revenue rose after the Bush tax cuts,

Yes, they did rise, but according to you they "rose sharply" which is a lie.

This is my source...Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

If you need me to teach you the formula for percentage of change let me know, I would be happy to.

Oh, I'll put my math skills up against yours any day, partner, not to mention my honesty and objectivity, both of which you severely lack. Where are you getting your numbers? Here are the numbers I have found for federal revenue, and they're from a liberal source:

• FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion. (Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?)

That would be a losing battle for you my son, stick to what you know and math is not it.

The tax cuts did not take effect until Jan 2018, thus the first 3 months of FY 18 were under the old tax rates, which is why it was just slightly higher. To see what the tax cuts did for a whole year you have to compare the same 12 months to the 12 months before.

My source for those number is the Trump's own Treasury Department, and its Monthly Treasury Statements.

Monthly Treasury Statement

Now, you will have to use the links on this page to find the appropriate reports, do you need me to teach you to do that as well?

 

[mikegriffith1]

LOL! Soooooo, even according to your unsourced numbers, revenue DID rise after the Reagan tax cuts!

...

LOL again. Yeah, sooooo, even according to your unsourced numbers, revenue rose after the Bush tax cuts,

Yes, they did rise, but according to you they "rose sharply" which is a lie.

This is my source...Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 | Tax Foundation

If you need me to teach you the formula for percentage of change let me know, I would be happy to.

Oh, I'll put my math skills up against yours any day, partner, not to mention my honesty and objectivity, both of which you severely lack. Where are you getting your numbers? Here are the numbers I have found for federal revenue, and they're from a liberal source:

• FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion. (Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?)

That would be a losing battle for you my son, stick to what you know and math is not it.

The tax cuts did not take effect until Jan 2018, thus the first 3 months of FY 18 were under the old tax rates, which is why it was just slightly higher. To see what the tax cuts did for a whole year you have to compare the same 12 months to the 12 months before.

My source for those number is the Trump's own Treasury Department, and its Monthly Treasury Statements.

Monthly Treasury Statement

Now, you will have to use the links on this page to find the appropriate reports, do you need me to teach you to do that as well?

No, but apparently someone needs to teach you how to read. I notice you skipped over the fact that revenue for FY 2019 is projected to be at $3.44 trillion, whereas revenue for FY 2017 was $3.32 trillion and for FY 2018 was $3.33 trillion. Now, perhaps your Common Core math skills can find an alternative answer, but I'm pretty sure that $3.44 trillion is more than $3.32 trillion and $3.33 trillion.

Furthermore, revenue for FY 2016 was $3.27 trillion, but revenue for FY 2018 (Oct 2017 to Oct 2018) was $3.3 trillion. Now, again, maybe your liberal Common Core math skills can come up with a different answer, but I do believe that $3.3 trillion is more than $3.27 trillion.

Just stop lying and admit that federal revenue has gone up under the Trump tax cuts. Revenue was $3.27 trillion in FY 2016 but was $3.3 trillion in FY 2018. Your refusal to admit plain facts is just incredible, but not unusual for you.

Revenue did rise sharply under Reagan: Income tax revenue alone rose by some 80% from 1983 to 1989, going from $326 billion in 1983 to $549 billion in 1989:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

And, as mentioned, the four years after the Bush tax cuts saw the biggest four-year increase in revenue in American history. If we can let people keep more of their earnings and still increase federal revenue, then I don't care one little bit that revenue would have increased more if we had not cut people's taxes. That's one of the differences between us.

You keep ignoring the fact that American workers got to keep a larger share of their paychecks under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as they are under the Trump tax cuts. You're obsessed with how much of our money the governments gets to take, but I care a lot more about how much money people get to keep. My take-home pay has gone up by $220 thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, but apparently someone needs to teach you how to read. I notice you skipped over the fact that revenue for FY 2019 is projected to be at $3.44 trillion, whereas revenue for FY 2017 was $3.32 trillion and for FY 2018 was $3.33 trillion. Now, perhaps your Common Core math skills can find an alternative answer, but I'm pretty sure that $3.44 trillion is more than $3.32 trillion and $3.33 trillion.

Furthermore, revenue for FY 2016 was $3.27 trillion, but revenue for FY 2018 (Oct 2017 to Oct 2018) was $3.3 trillion. Now, again, maybe your liberal Common Core math skills can come up with a different answer, but I do believe that $3.3 trillion is more than $3.27 trillion.

Just stop lying and admit that federal revenue has gone up under the Trump tax cuts. Revenue was $3.27 trillion in FY 2016 but was $3.3 trillion in FY 2018. Your refusal to admit plain facts is just incredible, but not unusual for you.

I already told you that you cannot use the FY numbers, the tax cuts did not get phased in till the 4th month of the FY.

Just comparing 12 months to 12 months...here are the numbers from the Fed Govt itself...

I do not give a shit about projections, they are meaningless.

Revenue did rise sharply under Reagan: Income tax revenue alone rose by some 80% from 1983 to 1989, going from $326 billion in 1983 to $549 billion in 1989:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Where did you get these numbers?

And, as mentioned, the four years after the Bush tax cuts saw the biggest four-year increase in revenue in American history. If we can let people keep more of their earnings and still increase federal revenue, then I don't care one little bit that revenue would have increased more if we had not cut people's taxes. That's one of the differences between us.

You keep ignoring the fact that American workers got to keep a larger share of their paychecks under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as they are under the Trump tax cuts. You're obsessed with how much of our money the governments gets to take, but I care a lot more about how much money people get to keep. My take-home pay has gone up by $220 thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

As long as we spend more than we bring in I do not care if people get to keep more of their money, I think it is morally wrong to spend more than we have now and make our kids and grandkids pay for it. But people like you are happy to keep doing it, you are basically a freeloader, living off the backs of our kids and grandkids.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And, as mentioned, the four years after the Bush tax cuts saw the biggest four-year increase in revenue in American history.

The 4 years after the Bush tax cut saw a total increase of 16.2%....the 4 years prior to the Bush tax cuts saw an increase of 28.2%

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Revenue did rise sharply under Reagan: Income tax revenue alone rose by some 80% from 1983 to 1989, going from $326 billion in 1983 to $549 billion in 1989:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

 

[edward37]

Revenue did rise sharply under Reagan: Income tax revenue alone rose by some 80% from 1983 to 1989, going from $326 billion in 1983 to $549 billion in 1989:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

View attachment 258303

AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states | Fox ...

https://www.foxbusiness.com/.../ap-fact-check-blue-high-tax-states-fund-red-low-tax-stat...
Dec 9, 2017 - In fact, most high-tax states send more money to Washington than they get ... are paying for states that didn't," the Wisconsin Republicansaid.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In fact, The Balance, a liberal economics site, just updated their page on federal revenue to show the fact that revenue for FY 2020 is budgeted at $3.64 trillion:

• FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted.
• FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion. (Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?)

Federal revenue for FY 2016, as we see above, was $3.27 trillion, but American taxpayers and our companies were paying a lot more in taxes that fiscal year than we are now. Yet, federal revenue for FY 2018, the first full fiscal year under the Trump tax cuts, was $3.33 trillion, an increase of $60 billion over FY 2016.

Hey, if we can boost the economy, allow our companies to keep a lot more of their profits, boost wages, revitalize manufacturing, and enable taxpayers in the second and third brackets to keep $80-$250 more per month of their paychecks, I, for one, am all for it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In fact, The Balance, a liberal economics site, just updated their page on federal revenue to show the fact that revenue for FY 2020 is budgeted at $3.64 trillion:

• FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted.
• FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
• FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion. (Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?)

Federal revenue for FY 2016, as we see above, was $3.27 trillion, but American taxpayers and our companies were paying a lot more in taxes that fiscal year than we are now. Yet, federal revenue for FY 2018, the first full fiscal year under the Trump tax cuts, was $3.33 trillion, an increase of $60 billion over FY 2016.

Hey, if we can boost the economy, allow our companies to keep a lot more of their profits, boost wages, revitalize manufacturing, and enable taxpayers in the second and third brackets to keep $80-$250 more per month of their paychecks, I, for one, am all for it.

Projections are ******* meaningless, Hillary was projected to win the White House...how did that work out?

FY18 was not a full fiscal year under the Trump Tax cuts...the FY starts in Oct, the cuts started in Jan.

Are you really this stupid or is it just an act for the internet?

Let's address this...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

FY 18 total debt added to the National Debt...according to the Trump Admin's own site...

Start of the FY: 20,347,802,336,477
End of the FY: 21,516,058,183,180

An increase of 1.16 Trillion dollars...in the middle of a booming economy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

taxes that fiscal year than we are now. Yet, federal revenue for FY 2018, the first full fiscal year under the Trump tax cuts,t.

The true first year under Trump's tax cuts....Fed revenue went down...

 

[mikegriffith1]

No, but apparently someone needs to teach you how to read. I notice you skipped over the fact that revenue for FY 2019 is projected to be at $3.44 trillion, whereas revenue for FY 2017 was $3.32 trillion and for FY 2018 was $3.33 trillion. Now, perhaps your Common Core math skills can find an alternative answer, but I'm pretty sure that $3.44 trillion is more than $3.32 trillion and $3.33 trillion.

Furthermore, revenue for FY 2016 was $3.27 trillion, but revenue for FY 2018 (Oct 2017 to Oct 2018) was $3.3 trillion. Now, again, maybe your liberal Common Core math skills can come up with a different answer, but I do believe that $3.3 trillion is more than $3.27 trillion.

Just stop lying and admit that federal revenue has gone up under the Trump tax cuts. Revenue was $3.27 trillion in FY 2016 but was $3.3 trillion in FY 2018. Your refusal to admit plain facts is just incredible, but not unusual for you.

I already told you that you cannot use the FY numbers, the tax cuts did not get phased in till the 4th month of the FY.

Just comparing 12 months to 12 months...here are the numbers from the Fed Govt itself...

View attachment 258297

I do not give a shit about projections, they are meaningless.

Revenue did rise sharply under Reagan: Income tax revenue alone rose by some 80% from 1983 to 1989, going from $326 billion in 1983 to $549 billion in 1989:

1983 -- $326 billion
1984 -- $355 billion
1985 -- $396 billion
1986 -- $412 billion
1987 -- $476 billion
1988 -- $496 billion
1989 -- $549 billion

Where did you get these numbers?

And, as mentioned, the four years after the Bush tax cuts saw the biggest four-year increase in revenue in American history. If we can let people keep more of their earnings and still increase federal revenue, then I don't care one little bit that revenue would have increased more if we had not cut people's taxes. That's one of the differences between us.

You keep ignoring the fact that American workers got to keep a larger share of their paychecks under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as they are under the Trump tax cuts. You're obsessed with how much of our money the governments gets to take, but I care a lot more about how much money people get to keep. My take-home pay has gone up by $220 thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

As long as we spend more than we bring in I do not care if people get to keep more of their money, I think it is morally wrong to spend more than we have now and make our kids and grandkids pay for it. But people like you are happy to keep doing it, you are basically a freeloader, living off the backs of our kids and grandkids.

And I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the positive impact that Trump's massive deregulation in 2017 had on the 2017 numbers? Those moves saved businesses billions of dollars in red tape and helped spur the economic upturn. So how about we compare FY 2016, i.e., before any of Trump's policies were in effect, to FY 2018 and FY 2019, hey? Revenue was higher in FY 2018 than in FY 2016, and revenue is officially estimated to be higher this FY than FY 2018, which means it will be even higher than FY 2016.

But, let's take the calendar year numbers for CY 2018 and compare them to CY 2016, before any of Trump's policies were in effect and while Obama was still in office, shall we?

CY 2018 -- $3.33 trillion
CY 2016 -- $3.24 trillion

So in the first full calendar year of the Trump tax cuts, CY 2018, revenue was $90 billion more than it was in CY 2016.

Some additional information on the impact of the Trump tax cuts on federal revenue:

Trump Tax-Cut Results: Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs | Investor's Business Daily

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the positive impact that Trump's massive deregulation in 2017 had on the 2017 numbers? Those moves saved businesses billions of dollars in red tape and helped spur the economic upturn. So how about we compare FY 2016, i.e., before any of Trump's policies were in effect, to FY 2018 and FY 2019, hey? Revenue was higher in FY 2018 than in FY 2016, and revenue is officially estimated to be higher this FY than FY 2018, which means it will be even higher than FY 2016.

I would be happy to talk about them if you can put some hard, cold numbers to them. I do not deal in anecdotes .

But, let's take the calendar year numbers for CY 2018 and compare them to CY 2016, before any of Trump's policies were in effect and while Obama was still in office, shall we?

CY 2018 -- $3.33 trillion
CY 2016 -- $3.24 trillion

So in the first full calendar year of the Trump tax cuts, CY 2018, revenue was $90 billion more than it was in CY 2016.

Yes, but the entire change came in 2017, not from the tax cuts. The tax cuts reduced income year to year between CY17 and CY18...this is a fact you cannot deny.

 

[danielpalos]

Things are looking really, really good right now. We may even be seeing some unexpected life from overseas. A recession may not happen for quite a while.

Damn good.

Now, it's time to look at the exploding debt Trump allowed to get us here. This is a great sugar high, but that's the other half of this equation.
.

Mac has this 100% correct. We must now balance what we are doing, and address the debt. It has been successfully navigated for 1/2 of the equation, now we must address the other 1/2!

Not quite

We must spend money to destroy the deep state

We must spend money to set workers back working and living efficient

This produces some more debt but if not the nation will fall

Once workers gets set up and in the groove the debt can finalky start lowering

But if women keep voting in crooks destruction will come instead of great prosperity that trump understands so well

Oh look...Mr. Women-Are-To-Blame-For-Everything is back.

Great prosperity under Trump?

A flat DOW for over a year. A 2.55% GDP growth. A worse trade deficit then when Obama left office. And a whopping trillion dollar deficit.

That is your idea of prosperity Mr. Why-Won't-Nice-Girls-Ever-Go-Out-With-Me?

Lower logjc ability plus emotions brings harmful voting

Women have this

Western democracies women destroyed Rhodesia and South Africa

Women have higher IQ's then men - on average.

'One of world's foremost experts in IQ measurement says that in recent decades, women have grown smarter at a faster rate then men and that they now generally have higher IQs than their male counterparts. Psychologist James Flynn tested 500 males and 500 females "from a wide variety of so-called advanced countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina and found women scored a half to a whole point higher in all of them. The only exception was Israel, where men still scored a couple of points higher than women." His assertions are based on the Raven's Progressive Matrices IQ test.'

Women Now Have Higher IQs Than Men

Why Women Finally Have Higher IQs than Men | TIME.com

Plus, more women are getting college degrees than men...far more.

Women Are Now More Likely to Have College Degree Than Men

Millions more women than men will be enrolled in college this fall - The Boston Globe

Women have - on average - higher IQ's and are more educated than men.

we need better solutions at lower cost, chics; we don't want to have to wait for science fiction future times.

 

[longknife]

Since liberals showed zero interest in all the good economic news for March, let's look at the Department of Larbor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs report for March. Here are some key highlights:

* The economy added 196,000 new jobs, in spite of all the cold weather and snow storms, etc.

* The change in jobs for January was revised up from +311,000 to +312,000, and the change for February was revised up from +20,000 to +33,000. I bet you never heard about those revisions on CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.

* Employment in construction rose by 16,000 jobs, and has increased by 246,000 over the past 12 months.

* Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates were as follows: adult men (3.6 percent), adult women (3.3 percent), teenagers (12.8 percent), Whites (3.4 percent), Blacks (6.7 percent), Asians (3.1 percent), and Hispanics (4.7 percent). These are historic lows for blacks, Hispanics, and women:

Unemployment rate of women in the U.S. 1990-2018 | Timeline

Why Credit for the Decline in Black Unemployment Goes to Trump, Not Obama | People's Pundit Daily

By the way, Hispanic unemployment never dropped below 5% before October 2017. Never.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

* In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $27.70, following a 10-cent gain in February. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.2 percent. Most of my pay raises have been 2.0-2.5%.

* Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 6 cents to $23.24 in March.

* The U-6 unemployment rate, aka the real unemployment rate, dropped again in March and is now down to 7.3%, down from 8.1% in January.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

In fact, the U-6 rate is now lower than it was in 2005 and is approaching how low it was in 1999!

U6 Unemployment Rate

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

Unemployment figures would be even lower if more of the "unemployed" were actually qualified to obtain many of the jobs begging applicants.
Company are willing to waive experience or education with the caveat of training them on the job.
Sadly, many with diplomas can't read, write, or calculate at the minimum level many jobs require.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the positive impact that Trump's massive deregulation in 2017 had on the 2017 numbers? Those moves saved businesses billions of dollars in red tape and helped spur the economic upturn. So how about we compare FY 2016, i.e., before any of Trump's policies were in effect, to FY 2018 and FY 2019, hey? Revenue was higher in FY 2018 than in FY 2016, and revenue is officially estimated to be higher this FY than FY 2018, which means it will be even higher than FY 2016.

I would be happy to talk about them if you can put some hard, cold numbers to them. I do not deal in anecdotes .

But, let's take the calendar year numbers for CY 2018 and compare them to CY 2016, before any of Trump's policies were in effect and while Obama was still in office, shall we?

CY 2018 -- $3.33 trillion
CY 2016 -- $3.24 trillion

So in the first full calendar year of the Trump tax cuts, CY 2018, revenue was $90 billion more than it was in CY 2016.

Yes, but the entire change came in 2017, not from the tax cuts. The tax cuts reduced income year to year between CY17 and CY18...this is a fact you cannot deny.

Oh, boy. Okay, let's consider some facts:

One, per the Treasury Department, federal revenue for FY 2019, based on receipts so far, will be $3.44 trillion, which logically suggests that revenue for CY 2019 will be a bit higher.

Two, tax cuts take time to have an effect, which should go without saying.

Three, the government estimates that federal revenue will be $3.645 trillion in FY 2020, a substantial increase from FY 2017's revenue of $3.32 trillion, an increase of $336 billion in fact.

Four, okay, so CY 2018's revenue was $13 billion less than CY 2017's revenue, but look what we got in CY 2018: a huge increase in manufacturing jobs, the first sizable hike in average wages in years, the lowest U-6 rate in years, over 2 million new jobs, etc., etc. Plus, American companies were suddenly able to keep 40% more of their profits, and middle-income Americans, those in the second and third tax brackets, saw their annual take-home pay increase by $960 to $4,800 per year, thanks to the Trump tax cuts. I'd say that was definitely worth a temporary drop, a drop of only $13 billion, in calendar year revenue, especially given the fact that all indications are that CY 2019 and 2020 revenue are going to be higher than CY 2018 revenue, and higher than CY 2017 revenue.

Five, I again point out that any analysis of 2017's numbers should take into account Trump's substantial deregulation measures, such as his executive orders to markedly defang the costs of Obamacare (1/20/17), to speed the approval process for infrastructure projects (1/24/17), to require federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one they propose (1/30/17), and, perhaps most important, to order the Treasury Department to review all financial regulations. So even though Trump's tax cuts were not in effect in 2017, his regulatory policies were.

Six, that's why a fairer, more objective comparison, is to compare CY 2016 revenue with CY 2018 revenue. As mentioned, CY 2018 revenue was $90 billion higher than CY 2016 revenue.

 

[deanrd]

Since liberals showed zero interest in all the good economic news for March, let's look at the Department of Larbor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs report for March. Here are some key highlights:

* The economy added 196,000 new jobs, in spite of all the cold weather and snow storms, etc.

* The change in jobs for January was revised up from +311,000 to +312,000, and the change for February was revised up from +20,000 to +33,000. I bet you never heard about those revisions on CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.

* Employment in construction rose by 16,000 jobs, and has increased by 246,000 over the past 12 months.

* Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates were as follows: adult men (3.6 percent), adult women (3.3 percent), teenagers (12.8 percent), Whites (3.4 percent), Blacks (6.7 percent), Asians (3.1 percent), and Hispanics (4.7 percent). These are historic lows for blacks, Hispanics, and women:

Unemployment rate of women in the U.S. 1990-2018 | Timeline

Why Credit for the Decline in Black Unemployment Goes to Trump, Not Obama | People's Pundit Daily

By the way, Hispanic unemployment never dropped below 5% before October 2017. Never.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

* In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $27.70, following a 10-cent gain in February. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.2 percent. Most of my pay raises have been 2.0-2.5%.

* Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 6 cents to $23.24 in March.

* The U-6 unemployment rate, aka the real unemployment rate, dropped again in March and is now down to 7.3%, down from 8.1% in January.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

In fact, the U-6 rate is now lower than it was in 2005 and is approaching how low it was in 1999!

U6 Unemployment Rate

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

Seems there are 7.1 million jobs available. With so many jobs open, it seems no one would be unemployed. What have Republicans done to fill those jobs?

For a criminal, Trump is incredibly lucky. First, by inheriting a great economy from Obama. And he inherited over $400,000,000.00 from his dad. It's like winning a double lottery.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh, boy. Okay, let's consider some facts:

One, per the Treasury Department, federal revenue for FY 2019, based on receipts so far, will be $3.44 trillion, which logically suggests that revenue for CY 2019 will be a bit higher.

This is good, and not unexpected. Only 14% of the time does Fed Revenue not exceed the previous year since 1935. Revenue growth is the norm, not the exception. Since this is the case, the more important thing to look at is the amount of growth.

Two, tax cuts take time to have an effect, which should go without saying.

We have seen the effect, we lost money. This year we will increase, but at a slower rate than the year prior to the tax cut.

Three, the government estimates that federal revenue will be $3.645 trillion in FY 2020, a substantial increase from FY 2017's revenue of $3.32 trillion, an increase of $336 billion in fact.

Government estimates are worthy of being used to line the bottom of a bird cage, nothing more. The Govt always estimates the "best possible" numbers.

Four, okay, so CY 2018's revenue was $13 billion less than CY 2017's revenue, but look what we got in CY 2018: a huge increase in manufacturing jobs, the first sizable hike in average wages in years, the lowest U-6 rate in years, over 2 million new jobs, etc., etc.

We did see a nice increase in manufacturing jobs, this is true.

Wage growth has more to do with a shortage of workers than the tax cuts. Corporations were not hurting for money prior to the tax cuts, most were already seeing record profits.

On Jan 1 2018 the U-6 was 8.2%, on Dec 1 2018 it was 7.6%, a nice drop but nothing to write home about.

We have had over 2 million new jobs added every year since 2011.

Five, I again point out that any analysis of 2017's numbers should take into account Trump's substantial deregulation measures, such as his executive orders to markedly defang the costs of Obamacare (1/20/17), to speed the approval process for infrastructure projects (1/24/17), to require federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one they propose (1/30/17), and, perhaps most important, to order the Treasury Department to review all financial regulations. So even though Trump's tax cuts were not in effect in 2017, his regulatory policies were.

I would be happy to take this into account if it can be quantified,

Six, that's why a fairer, more objective comparison, is to compare CY 2016 revenue with CY 2018 revenue. As mentioned, CY 2018 revenue was $90 billion higher than CY 2016 revenue.

2017 revenue was 90 billion higher than 2016. You do not get to skip a year.

The tax cuts were unnecessary and I am opposed to any and all tax cuts that are not accompanied by spending cuts. Their main purpose was to give Trump his "greater than 3%" GPD growth, and they failed to even do that...mostly due to his even more stupid trade war. Tax cuts and a trade war at the same time was a bad idea.

Just a reminder...the national debt as of Thursday...$ 22,027,894,379,236...will Trump ever address it?

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the positive impact that Trump's massive deregulation in 2017 had on the 2017 numbers? Those moves saved businesses billions of dollars in red tape and helped spur the economic upturn. So how about we compare FY 2016, i.e., before any of Trump's policies were in effect, to FY 2018 and FY 2019, hey? Revenue was higher in FY 2018 than in FY 2016, and revenue is officially estimated to be higher this FY than FY 2018, which means it will be even higher than FY 2016.

I would be happy to talk about them if you can put some hard, cold numbers to them. I do not deal in anecdotes .

But, let's take the calendar year numbers for CY 2018 and compare them to CY 2016, before any of Trump's policies were in effect and while Obama was still in office, shall we?

CY 2018 -- $3.33 trillion
CY 2016 -- $3.24 trillion

So in the first full calendar year of the Trump tax cuts, CY 2018, revenue was $90 billion more than it was in CY 2016.

Yes, but the entire change came in 2017, not from the tax cuts. The tax cuts reduced income year to year between CY17 and CY18...this is a fact you cannot deny.

Oh, boy. Okay, let's consider some facts:

One, per the Treasury Department, federal revenue for FY 2019, based on receipts so far, will be $3.44 trillion, which logically suggests that revenue for CY 2019 will be a bit higher.

Two, tax cuts take time to have an effect, which should go without saying.

Three, the government estimates that federal revenue will be $3.645 trillion in FY 2020, a substantial increase from FY 2017's revenue of $3.32 trillion, an increase of $336 billion in fact.

Four, okay, so CY 2018's revenue was $13 billion less than CY 2017's revenue, but look what we got in CY 2018: a huge increase in manufacturing jobs, the first sizable hike in average wages in years, the lowest U-6 rate in years, over 2 million new jobs, etc., etc. Plus, American companies were suddenly able to keep 40% more of their profits, and middle-income Americans, those in the second and third tax brackets, saw their annual take-home pay increase by $960 to $4,800 per year, thanks to the Trump tax cuts. I'd say that was definitely worth a temporary drop, a drop of only $13 billion, in calendar year revenue, especially given the fact that all indications are that CY 2019 and 2020 revenue are going to be higher than CY 2018 revenue, and higher than CY 2017 revenue.

Five, I again point out that any analysis of 2017's numbers should take into account Trump's substantial deregulation measures, such as his executive orders to markedly defang the costs of Obamacare (1/20/17), to speed the approval process for infrastructure projects (1/24/17), to require federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one they propose (1/30/17), and, perhaps most important, to order the Treasury Department to review all financial regulations. So even though Trump's tax cuts were not in effect in 2017, his regulatory policies were.

Six, that's why a fairer, more objective comparison, is to compare CY 2016 revenue with CY 2018 revenue. As mentioned, CY 2018 revenue was $90 billion higher than CY 2016 revenue.

Oh, and regarding CY 2018 federal revenue being slightly lower than CY 2017 revenue, how about we factor in the Federal Reserve's raising of interest rates in mid-2017 and 2018? I bet federal revenue would have been higher in 2018 if the Fed had not raised interest rates so much.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the positive impact that Trump's massive deregulation in 2017 had on the 2017 numbers? Those moves saved businesses billions of dollars in red tape and helped spur the economic upturn. So how about we compare FY 2016, i.e., before any of Trump's policies were in effect, to FY 2018 and FY 2019, hey? Revenue was higher in FY 2018 than in FY 2016, and revenue is officially estimated to be higher this FY than FY 2018, which means it will be even higher than FY 2016.

I would be happy to talk about them if you can put some hard, cold numbers to them. I do not deal in anecdotes .

But, let's take the calendar year numbers for CY 2018 and compare them to CY 2016, before any of Trump's policies were in effect and while Obama was still in office, shall we?

CY 2018 -- $3.33 trillion
CY 2016 -- $3.24 trillion

So in the first full calendar year of the Trump tax cuts, CY 2018, revenue was $90 billion more than it was in CY 2016.

Yes, but the entire change came in 2017, not from the tax cuts. The tax cuts reduced income year to year between CY17 and CY18...this is a fact you cannot deny.

Oh, boy. Okay, let's consider some facts:

One, per the Treasury Department, federal revenue for FY 2019, based on receipts so far, will be $3.44 trillion, which logically suggests that revenue for CY 2019 will be a bit higher.

Two, tax cuts take time to have an effect, which should go without saying.

Three, the government estimates that federal revenue will be $3.645 trillion in FY 2020, a substantial increase from FY 2017's revenue of $3.32 trillion, an increase of $336 billion in fact.

Four, okay, so CY 2018's revenue was $13 billion less than CY 2017's revenue, but look what we got in CY 2018: a huge increase in manufacturing jobs, the first sizable hike in average wages in years, the lowest U-6 rate in years, over 2 million new jobs, etc., etc. Plus, American companies were suddenly able to keep 40% more of their profits, and middle-income Americans, those in the second and third tax brackets, saw their annual take-home pay increase by $960 to $4,800 per year, thanks to the Trump tax cuts. I'd say that was definitely worth a temporary drop, a drop of only $13 billion, in calendar year revenue, especially given the fact that all indications are that CY 2019 and 2020 revenue are going to be higher than CY 2018 revenue, and higher than CY 2017 revenue.

Five, I again point out that any analysis of 2017's numbers should take into account Trump's substantial deregulation measures, such as his executive orders to markedly defang the costs of Obamacare (1/20/17), to speed the approval process for infrastructure projects (1/24/17), to require federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one they propose (1/30/17), and, perhaps most important, to order the Treasury Department to review all financial regulations. So even though Trump's tax cuts were not in effect in 2017, his regulatory policies were.

Six, that's why a fairer, more objective comparison, is to compare CY 2016 revenue with CY 2018 revenue. As mentioned, CY 2018 revenue was $90 billion higher than CY 2016 revenue.

Oh, and regarding CY 2018 federal revenue being slightly lower than CY 2017 revenue, how about we factor in the Federal Reserve's raising of interest rates in mid-2017 and 2018? I bet federal revenue would have been higher in 2018 if the Fed had not raised interest rates so much.

How did the interest rate hike keep people from paying taxes?

The Fed rate is still artificially low. We are ******* ourselves over keep the rates this low and adding so much debt during a booming economy. What happens when the next downturn/recession hits?