President Trump's nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics is suggesting that the agency suspend its monthly jobs report, an economic staple that is relied upon by the Federal Reserve and U.S. businesses to gauge the health of the economy.
In an interview on Fox News Digital on Monday ahead of his nomination, E.J. Antoni criticized the monthly employment report as flawed and suggested it be replaced with "more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data."
A three-month cycle should give Antoni time to cook the data to suit His Demented Orange Master. Which is more grist to the Epstein Distraction Machine.
7 comments:
In August of 2018, the annual jobs numbers were adjusted downward some 818,000 jobs. That seems to me to be significant and if it doesn't speak of partisanship then it speak of incompetence. Either one calls for some sort of a look at just how those numbers are calculated.
That jobs number sent out every month is important, and is used for a number of things, not the least of which is the confidence in the stock market and how money is invested, which affects everyone who has a 401K, or a pension, or owns stocks, or even those who buy things at the store, the cost of which can be affected by the confidence in the economy.
When your firing people left and right the number of jobs decrease
and the number of unemployed increases. The why and the extent
of it is more interesting.
IF its down by that many it indicates things that are certain, they
aren't paying taxes, they are collecting unemployment that money
comes from somewhere.
The government as the biggest single employer its firings and
layoffs are the cause or a significant part of that number.
Doing heck of a job trumpie. Not!
Eck!
The government as the single biggest employer of the U.S. is correct, but the real question is, should they be?
It seems like you justify having so many federal workers is so that they can pay taxes, which brings money into the coffers. So why not just put the entire 330 some million people on the federal payroll? That way the taxes would keep the nation humming along.
As for unemployment, my parents owned a business for over 30 years, so I know that employers pay unemployment insurance.
The truth is, America has to go on a spending diet, where we simply stop printing more money to fund things that we cannot afford. If we don't then printing more money will make us end up like the Weimar Republic, with money worthless.
First off, take away the 2.6 million people who are either in the military or work for it and the numbers of Federal employees change a bit.
Second, why not bring taxes back to a level where the uber-rich are paying their fair share? Trump's BBB was a huge giveaway to the rich, and, coupled with the long-term effects of his tariffs, will stomp repeatedly on those who are not rich.
The deficit balloons under Republicans with their giveaways to the rich, but they then demand that the rest of us pay the piper. That's economic reality.
According to an Aug. 12 article in Fortune magazine, the tariffs are bringing in enough money to actually reduce the $37 trillion national debt. While Fortune magazine leans a bit right, their sources are generally regarded as solid.
You do realize that the Democrats had control of the entire government just a few short years ago, and could have changed the tax codes.
Also one has to wonder just what you might consider the uber-rich's fair share? Make them pay on unrealized capital gains? Such as when a stock they own rises in value they pay on that "financial gain". Then you also expose a homeowner to pay taxes on their unrealized gains from the increasing the value of their homes. Which is actually an idea floated in a few liberal areas to increase revenues.
Here's a novel idea. Why doesn't the government at all levels stop spending so much money?
Here’s what I would suggest: make them at least pay tax on their capital gains equal to wage rates. Why should capital gains income be favored over people who work for a living? Why do hedge-fund dudes pay so little in taxes?
Also, about “control of government“, changing the tax code without shenanigans is fairly difficult. Because of the filibuster.
PP, the money the tariffs are "bringing in" is coming from the companies already here in America that are importing goods and materials. Those companies are absorbing some of the import cost, but largely passing it onto the consumer, resulting in an inflation rate of 3.1% in July 2025. The tRump tariffs are making Americans pay more for goods and services. Those with low wages, on fixed incomes, with limited savings are impacted the most severely; whereas those with high incomes or large portfolios can better cope with the price increases.
tRump is not good for America's middle and lower income groups. Actually, he isn't good for the entire world economy.
Dale
Post a Comment