Here we go. Jeff Sessions resigns as AG

[Madmick]

Whatever you have to tell yourself...

Either read up on unemployment figures, or shoosh until you learn more, and understand better why the unemployment figures are an unpaid loan. Don't project.

Unemployment is down 32% (from 4.9% to 3.7%). These are historically good unemployment figures:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

LFPR is equal to when Trump gained office:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Real average workweek earnings increased 1.1% since last September (including 0.7% for the "working man" laborers). Inflation during this period has been 0.2%, so even accounting for inflation, Trump has been good for the working man:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=201709&year2=201809

Really, it's obnoxious to hear, "whatever you have to tell yourself". Your arguments are delusional, and reveal your shallow knowledge. I'm not even an econ guy. This stuff is basic.

 

[JDragon]

For the first time in my adult life, I saw a factory with a help wanted sign in my city.

We’re doing just fine.

So there's no qualified personnel any more where you live?

 

[Prex32]

i don't think it's about him, it's all about that new guy

 

[PEB]

Jobs are appearing but wages are down by nearly 5 percent while fuel costs in up 40 percent in the last year. Rapid inflation an lower wages is not something to hang your hat on. FedEx is talking about cuts as fuel costs an operating cost climbs.

"During its quarterly earnings in August, FedEx said that its fuel costs were 40% higher than they were last year, adding more than $200 million in extra expenses. Labor costs also rose during the past year by 11%, CNN reports."

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/11/05/fedex-rate-increase

 

[Madmick]

Jobs are appearing but wages are down by nearly 5 percent while fuel costs in up 40 percent in the last year. Rapid inflation an lower wages is not something to hang your hat on. FedEx is talking about cuts as fuel costs an operating cost climbs.

"During its quarterly earnings in August, FedEx said that its fuel costs were 40% higher than they were last year, adding more than $200 million in extra expenses. Labor costs also rose during the past year by 11%, CNN reports."

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/11/05/fedex-rate-increase

 

[bobgeese]

So there's no qualified personnel any more where you live?

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean.


We were a typical city built on mills, factories and steel. That had all but died out by my childhood.

When I saw a factory with a help wanted sign, I damn near died.




MFW^^^

 

[HereticBD]

Jobs are appearing but wages are down by nearly 5 percent

Are you using some sort of Liberal math to come away with that?

 

[LuchaBear]

Ha. I raise you less professional and more anti-marijuana.

President Donald Trump is considering former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to replace fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, sources familiar with the matter said.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/chris-christie-pam-bondi-trump-attorney-general/


<[analyzed}>

 

[Joe]

 

[KeepItRealist]

Sessions has likely been Trump's worst mistake other than signing any spending bill that doesn't include funding for the Wall.

Gave up a Senate seat for someone who was so utterly worthless in controlling misbehavior by Rosenstein and others at the DOJ while he focused on crap like legal marijuana. This is after Trump fought for him to be AG. Granted, no would could have guessed what a sniveling coward Sessions would act like at the DOJ. Recusing himself due to pressure from the Democrats via Fake News and allowing Mueller to keep dragging this nonsense out to look for crap unrelated to what he was supposed to be looking into.

 

[Seano]

Sessions has likely been Trump's worst mistake other than signing any spending bill that doesn't include funding for the Wall.
.

He could one up it if he chooses Christie.

 

[KeepItRealist]

He could one up it if he chooses Christie.

Truth

 

[Rational Poster]

Either read up on unemployment figures, or shoosh until you learn more, and understand better why the unemployment figures are an unpaid loan. Don't project.

Unemployment is down 32% (from 4.9% to 3.7%). These are historically good unemployment figures:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

LFPR is equal to when Trump gained office:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Real average workweek earnings increased 1.1% since last September (including 0.7% for the "working man" laborers). Inflation during this period has been 0.2%, so even accounting for inflation, Trump has been good for the working man:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=201709&year2=201809

Really, it's obnoxious to hear, "whatever you have to tell yourself". Your arguments are delusional, and reveal your shallow knowledge. I'm not even an econ guy. This stuff is basic.

If you were an econ guy you'd know that 3.7% unemployment is not historically good. Anything under 5% is over employment and is as sign of a stressed labor pool.

The LFPR is not good and hasn't been since the GFC. Not improving or worsening under Trump is nothing to write home about.

Wages increased 1.1%.. but corporations income increased by 14%.. and we don't have the GDP growth to back it up.

We still haven't experienced one quarter post tax cuts to meet the required growth to actually pay for the tax cuts, let alone the required annual rate which is pure fantasy.

 

[SBJJ]

I’m torn on Sessions. On one hand he’s done a miraculous job in some ways. Like GOAT type AG material. On the other hand, he’s been absent in some ways and it doesn’t seem the department is really trying to get to the bottom of corruption in it’s ranks. I’m also hopeful this stupid federal war on weed disappears now

@waiguoren. What would be your top picks for a replacement here?

 

[Madmick]

If you were an econ guy you'd know that 3.7% unemployment is not historically good. Anything under 5% is over employment and is as sign of a stressed labor pool.

The LFPR is not good and hasn't been since the GFC. Not improving or worsening under Trump is nothing to write home about.

Wages increased 1.1%.. but corporations income increased by 14%.. and we don't have the GDP growth to back it up.

We still haven't experienced one quarter post tax cuts to meet the required growth to actually pay for the tax cuts, let alone the required annual rate which is pure fantasy.

4% unemployment is considered full employment. Maybe if you weren't trying to impress people with a nonexistent expertise you would know this. Also basic.

Obama entered an economy with 7.8% unemployment, peaked at 10.0%, and had brought it down to to 4.9% at the end of his term. That was the lowest he ever achieved.

Yet again: this isn't the way to skin this cat. You guys are bringing the wrong knife. I'm trying to help you, and you're so stubborn, ignorant, and determined to hate on Trump irrationally that you can't even be helped to find the rational argument.

 

[Rational Poster]

4% unemployment is considered full employment. Maybe if you weren't trying to impress people with a nonexistent expertise you would know this. Also basic.

Obama entered an economy with 7.8% unemployment, peaked at 10.0%, and had brought it down to to 4.9% at the end of his term. That was the lowest he ever achieved.

Yet again: this isn't the way to skin this cat. You guys are bringing the wrong knife. I'm trying to help you, and you're so stubborn, ignorant, and determined to hate on Trump irrationally that you can't even be helped to find the rational argument.

"The Federal Reserve considers a base unemployment rate (the U-3 rate) of 5.0 to 5.2 percent as "full employment" in the economy. The recovery has now achieved that level, known technically as the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, or NAIRU"

"If unemployment falls too much, inflation will rise as employers compete to hire workers and push up wages too fast. To economists, full employment means that unemployment has fallen to the lowest possible level that won't cause inflation. In the U.S., that was once thought to be a jobless rate of about 5 percent." -Bloomberg

"For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dickens

 

[Madmick]

"The Federal Reserve considers a base unemployment rate (the U-3 rate) of 5.0 to 5.2 percent as "full employment" in the economy. The recovery has now achieved that level, known technically as the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, or NAIRU"

"If unemployment falls too much, inflation will rise as employers compete to hire workers and push up wages too fast. To economists, full employment means that unemployment has fallen to the lowest possible level that won't cause inflation. In the U.S., that was once thought to be a jobless rate of about 5 percent." -Bloomberg

"For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dickens

Congratulations on being educated to the concept of "Full Unemployment". I was working off acquired knowledge, not accessed knowledge (i.e. a Google), and you just revealed that the extent of your knowledge was just gained in the past several minutes with a Google. Unfortunately, your Googling didn't quite bring you up to speed in the matter of a few minutes. Fancy that.

For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s.[5] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated unemployment rate at full employment, plus & minus the standard error of the estimate.[6]

If you were an econ guy you'd know that 3.7% unemployment is not historically good. Anything under 5% is over employment and is as sign of a stressed labor pool.

 

[Rational Poster]

Congratulations on being educated to the concept of "Full Unemployment". I was working off acquired knowledge, not accessed knowledge (i.e. a Google), and you just revealed that the extent of your knowledge was just gained in the past several minutes with a Google. Unfortunately, your Googling didn't quite bring you up to speed in the matter of a few minutes. Fancy that.

I was using my acquired knowledge as well in my initial post that you quoted on the bottom here... then looked up most specific examples after and your response to this post doesn't change the fact that 3.7% is clearly over employment by any metric and is not historically good.

 

[Ophydian]

Congratulations on being educated to the concept of "Full Unemployment". I was working off acquired knowledge, not accessed knowledge (i.e. a Google), and you just revealed that the extent of your knowledge was just gained in the past several minutes with a Google. Unfortunately, your Googling didn't quite bring you up to speed in the matter of a few minutes. Fancy that.

What does it matter if it’s acquired or Googled, you are still wrong either way.

 

[MicroBrew]

Hey guys @Zankou @panamaican @Lord Coke , so appointment of Whitaker is illegal?

“President Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid,” said Conway in a piece co-written by former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal.

Conway and Katyal’s central argument is that a principal officer, such as acting attorney general of the United States, must be confirmed by the Senate. By evading such a procedure, Conway argues, it “defies one of the one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.”

The op-ed says the American people “cannot tolerate such an evasion of the Constitution’s very explicit, textually precise design. Senate confirmation exists for a simple, and good, reason.”

“Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody. His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation,” reads the piece.

Conway goes on to say that for Trump to allow Whitaker to take this position is to “betray the entire structure of our charter document.”

These sentiments were also recently shared by Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News, who said on Wednesday that he believed Trump’s appointment of Whitaker was illegal.

“Under the law, the person running the Department of Justice must have been approved by the United States Senate for some previous position. Even on an interim post,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Dana Perino.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/george-conway-slams-trump-op-183931751.html