Segment 1: Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos
Bernanke on Fed taper in 90 seconds
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Final Speech
Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke
FED Downgrades Economic Outlook & Says It Will Not Change Policy – Stuart Varney
US Federal Reserve to pull back on stimulus program in economic vote of confidence
Assessing the Ben Bernanke Legacy
Background Articles and Videos
Max Keiser Discusses QE & Rigged Global Markets
Peter Schiff Was Right – ‘Taper’ Edition (Dec 18, 2013 Update)
Peter Schiff We’re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming
Peter Schiff Money Causes Economic Crises – Peter Schiff Economic Crisis – Peter Schiff Money
Segment 0: God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos
I am Second® – The Robertsons
Duck Dynasty : Phil’s Way of Life
Duck Dynasty: Unknown Facts About The Robertsons
The Best of Uncle Si
Duck Dynasty : Si Struck
Duck Dynasty: Si’s New Toy
Duck Dynasty: Si’s Dating Tips
Duck Dynasty : Hey
Uncle Si Robertson “ICY STARE” HILARIOUS DUCK DYNASTY ( 720P HD )
Duck Commanders Phil and Willie Robertson Interview – CONAN on TBS
The Robertson’s of Duck Dynasty Talk About How Their Faith in Jesus Turned Around Their Lives!!
Duck Commander Phil Robertson Talks About Why This Country Needs More Jesus
Duck Commander Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty spoke to the congregation of Saddleback church in July on why people need Jesus and why the founders would agree — and I gotta say it was awesome. I watched it last night and knew I had to post it for you guys. Duck Commander’s message is really simple, that people need to love God and love each other and he delivers it beautifully. He really is a fantastic preacher.
Sources connected to the hit A&E show, and the Robertson clan, tell E! News that the family is “very serious” about leaving the reality series, after the network suspended patriarch Phil Robertson for his GQ interview, in which he grouped homosexuality in with bestiality as deviant behavior.
“They’re an extremely tight-knit family and they’re not going to let this get in the way,” a source connected to the family explains. “[Phil] is the reason for their success—they’re not going to abandon him. They’re also not about to let anyone threaten their religious beliefs.”
Says one insider who works on Duck Dynasty, “People who work on the show feel like it’s a big pissing match and there is no way that anyone can win.”
The current plan is to include Robertson in the upcoming fourth season, set to premiere Jan 15 on A&E. Season four had wrapped production before the controversy began. “Phil might be diminished but there’s no way to cut him out altogether,” says a source.
But can the family really walk away? Will a fifth season even happen?
The network owns the series and all of the intellectual property behind it, for at least one more season. But as one source points out, “The family could do appear on another network once their exclusivity is up with A&E. Under a normal contract, that usually means anywhere from six months to a year after the final episode has aired. However, if the family breaks their agreement with the network, the network could hold them for longer.”
It’s also fair to assume that A&E needs the series more than the family does. Duck Dynasty is A&E’s highest-rated show of all time, and has put the cable network on the map. It is the second-biggest cable series of the year, behind AMC’s The Walking Dead, and the Christmas special pulled in nearly 9 million viewers.
Meanwhile, the Robertson family has plenty of financial stability (for, arguably, future generations), thanks to their estimated whopping $400 million fortune. More than half of that comes from their retail brand, currently being sold at Wal-Mart, which could possibly get pulled in the wake of the scandal, as the mega-chain did with Paula Deen in the wake of the N-word controversy. But even still, the family’s Christmas album also hit No. 1 on the Billboard charts. They appear to remain a viable brand, for the time being. And they also have a show called Buck Commander on the Outdoor Channel. (A rep for the Outdoor Channel has not responded to request for comment regarding the future of the show.)
A source who works on Duck Dynasty believes the Phil Robertson controversy “can’t end well,” citing that the network has nowhere now to go. And the most likely scenario is that the series will end up being cancelled.
“If the network backs down and they bring Phil back, they look weak,” one insider explains. “If they stand their ground, the family probably won’t move forward and A&E loses their highest rated show.” Not to mention,
“No one can really imagine the show going forward without Phil. It would be too weird.”
Phil Robertson, patriarch of the “Duck Dynasty” clan, is being slammed for controversial comments he made about homosexuality in an interview in the January issue of GQ.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” Robertson told the magazine. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
When the reporter asked Robertson what he found sinful, he said “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
The self-proclaimed Bible-thumper then went on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
On Wednesday, GLAAD called Robertson’s statements “vile” and “littered with outdated stereotypes.”
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.
“Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
An A&E spokesman had no comment, but Robertson released his own statement responding to the controversy.
“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior,” he said. “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.
“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
“Duck Dynasty” has been a ratings phenomenon for A&E, drawing 11.8 million viewers to its fourth season premiere last August, the most-watched nonfiction series telecast in cable history.
Greenwald, Toobin Battle over Snowden on CNN: Corrupt Pols Get Promoted, Leakers Get Indicted
CBS Uses 60 Minutes as a NSA Propaganda Platform by White Washing Facts; Internet Erupts in Anger
CNN: Should Snowden Be Given Amnesty for NSA Disclosures?
NSA mass phone surveillance programme ‘unconstitutional’
Edward Snowden, NSA and GCHQ – Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger questioned – Truthloader
Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, is having to defend his newspaper’s coverage of the Edward Snowden, NSA and GCHQ story in front of a committee of MPs. Snowden, a former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor, became a whistleblower on the extent to which intelligence agencies are able to spy on people around the world when he passed documents to Glenn Greenwald. Since then spy programmes like PRISM, TEMPORA and XKeyscore have been revealed in the Guardian and other publications.
DOD official: Snowden ‘stole everything — literally everything’
Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden stole vastly more information than previously speculated, and is holding it at ransom for his own protection.
“What’s floating is so dangerous, we’d be behind for twenty years in terms of access (if it were to be leaked),” a ranking Department of Defense official told the Daily Caller.
“He stole everything — literally everything,” the official said.
“Sources briefed on the matter” told Reuters that such a cache could be used as an insurance policy in the event Snowden was captured, and that, “the worst was yet to come.”
The officials cited no hard evidence of such a cache, but indicated it was a possible worst-case-scenario. Some version of that scenario appears to have come true.
“It’s only accessible for a few hours a day, and is triple encrypted to the point where no one can break it,” the official said of the data cloud where Snowden has likely hidden the information.
According to the official, there are at least two others in possession of the code to access the information, and, “if we nail him — he’ll release the data.”
“Everything you don’t want the enemy to know, he has,” the official said. “Who we’re listening to, what we’re after — they’d shut us down.”
The damage would be “of biblical proportions,” the official said.
Another official from the NSA task force commissioned to assess the data stolen and leaked by Snowden said on television recently that granting Snowden amnesty is “worth having a conversation about” in order to secure any potential stolen data.
Director of the NSA Gen. Keith Alexander said on “60 Minutes” Sunday that he opposes the idea, and said that people need to be held accountable for their actions. The White House stated Monday it would not be changing its policy regarding Snowden.
The NSA director has repeatedly testified before Congress about the revealed programs, and continues to state that the leaks have compromised U.S. national security.
Alexander announced in October he would be retiring as NSA director and head of U.S. Cyber Command effective March, and a recent White House task force charged with improving NSA transparency has suggested appointing a civilian head to steer the signals intelligence agency.
The official said that following Alexander’s retirement, he doesn’t “know how (the amnesty conversation) is going to play out.”
Segment 1: Republican Senators and Representatives Traitors To The Principle of Fiscal Responsibility and Conservative and Tea Party Movement — Republican Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Base Will Take Out The Republican Budget Big Interventionist Government Spenders — Videos
US budget deal clears key Senate hurdle
Boehner lashes out at conservative groups over fragile budget deal
Budget Deal Exposes GOP Split Fox News Sunday Panel w Chris Wallace
Senate Republicans split over budget deal
Budget Deal Disappointment: Dr. Coburn on Morning Joe 12/11/2013
Grover Norquist – President of Americans for Tax Reform
Sen. Rand Paul on state of GOP, new budget deal
GOP Learder Take Aim At Tea Party Critics As House Passes Budget Deal – Sen Mike Lee (R-UT)
John Boehner places blame for horrid Congress where it belongs
By David Horsey
Setting new lows for accomplishment in its first year, the 113th Congress is on track to wrest the title of Worst Congress Ever from the horrid 112th Congress. House Speaker John A. Boehner bears a great deal of blame for this dismal record, but he can be commended for finally calling out the conservative activist organizations that have been cheering on the congressional drive toward ignominy.
Last week, with Congress on the verge of actually doing something – passing a compromise two-year budget that would avoid another disastrous government shutdown – right-wing groups such as the Club for Growth, Heritage Action and the tea party umbrella organization FreedomWorks demanded that Republicans vote against the spending plan and threatened that a “yes” vote could be used against incumbents in the 2014 GOP primaries.
At long last, Boehner had had enough. In a news conference Wednesday, the speaker hammered the conservative hard-liners, saying: “They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals. This is ridiculous. If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”
In another gathering with reporters Thursday, Boehner took a repeat shot. “I think they’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be,” he said. “And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”
Boehner went on to lay blame for October’s government shutdown squarely with the right-wing money groups. Those groups pushed the shutdown as a bold plan, encouraging the tea party faction of the House Republicans to resist more moderate voices in their caucus. “My members know that wasn’t exactly the strategy I had in mind,” the speaker said.
Besides the satisfaction of seeing Boehner smack down the people who have helped turn the Republican Party into a narrow cult of neo-Confederates, it is gratifying to have him lay bare the preposterous lie many of his conservative compatriots tried to foist on the American people at the time of the shutdown. The very right-wingers who engineered the government closure and were eager for a rejection of the debt ceiling raise, including Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Michele Bachmann and the whole crew on Fox News, are the ones who tried to pin blame for it all on President Obama. Unsurprisingly, the faction of Americans who live in a paranoid, Obama-fearing bubble eagerly swallowed this canard.
Now, though, the Republican speaker has spoken the truth. One can hope it is the first small step toward the Grand Old Party being restored to sanity and the first sign that Congress is edging toward redemption.
Support for a compromise two-year budget deal grew on Monday ahead of a Tuesday vote in the Senate as Republicans concluded that a measure that achieved overwhelming bipartisan support in the House could not die in Congress’s upper chamber.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, announced his support for the measure on Monday, appearing to give it the 60 votes it would need to overcome a filibuster threat and bring it to a final vote, which would need only a majority. Mr. Hatch joined Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, all Republicans who have said they will vote to cut off debate.
“This agreement isn’t everything I’d hoped it would be, and it isn’t what I would have written,” Mr. Hatch said. “But sometimes the answer has to be yes. The reality is that Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government.”
The deal, struck by Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, sailed through the House last week but ran into a toxic mix of re-election politics, presidential positioning and hurt feelings in the Senate.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, held a rare session on Sunday to formally file to end debate on the measure. Business groups, including the Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of the largest American corporations, pressed Senate Republicans to get on board, countering pressure from conservative groups that oppose the deal.
“The Ryan-Murray budget legislation, while not perfect, offers stability and the opportunity for the U.S. government to once again operate responsibly within the confines of an approved budget. It is both balanced and fiscally responsible. We are confident that if enacted it would help provide a platform for greater investment, job creation, and growth,” wrote Randall Stephenson, chairman-elect of the roundtable and chief executive of AT&T.
Mr. Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and his party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012, and Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio worked behind the scenes to win support from Senate Republicans.
And with a public showdown looming, undecided Republicans decided on Monday to come off the fence. Even some Republicans who had privately signaled opposition last week were coming around, convinced that a deal that passed the House 332-94, with a strong majority of Republicans behind it, could not be derailed in the Senate.
Washington (CNN) – The budget deal struck by Republican and Democratic lawmakers that easily passed the House of Representatives last week has run into some opposition in the Senate. But according to CNN’s vote count, the deal appears to be nearing passage.
There are currently a total of 36 aye votes for the budget, according to the count, with four Republicans joining 31 Democrats and one independent. All no votes, according to the count, are coming from Republicans, with 20 Senate offices telling CNN they plan to vote against the deal.
While Democrats do not have the 50 votes needed for final passage, top aides in both parties privately expressed confidence on Friday the bill will get the necessary support, even if a couple of wary moderate Democrats end up voting “no.”
But before the measure faces a final vote, it will need to pass the higher threshold of 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles. But Republicans – like Richard Burr of North Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona – have said they plan to back the motions that will eventually allow Democrats to only need a straight majority to pass the bill.
The four Republicans who plan to support the deal are Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Orrin Hatch of Utah.
Hatch is the most recent Republican to come out in support of the bill. In a Monday statement, the Republican lawmaker said that “this agreement isn’t everything I’d hoped it would be, and it isn’t what I would have written. But sometimes the answer has to be yes.”
“The reality is that Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government,” Hatch said. “Ultimately, this agreement upholds the principles conservatives stand for and, with Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, it is the best we could hope for.”
The deal worked out by House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray soared through the house, passing by a 332-94 vote. The budget – while smaller than some had wanted – is a bright spot of bipartisanship in what has been a year full of bitter partisanship.
For many, the deal represents a way to ensure that government doesn’t shut down again – like it did for 16 days in October.
In the Senate, however, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have questioned aspects of the deal. More liberal senators – like Tom Harkin for Iowa – complained that an unemployment benefit extension was not included in the deal.
“There’s over a million people now who cannot find a job, out of work, and right at this time of year their unemployment insurance is being cut off,” Harkin told Radio Iowa last week. “It’s really unconscionable.”
If lawmakers don’t act, unemployment benefits – at a cost of $26 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office – will expire for 1.3 million workers on December 28.
On the other side, more conservative members of the the Senate – like John Thune of South Dakota – told CNN he can’t support the deal because it doesn’t “include meaningful spending reforms that address our debt and deficit.”
Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, along with other senators, have also raised question about reductions in cost of living benefits for military retirees.
“After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,” Graham said in a release. “Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.”
Over a quarter of the Senate remains on the fence – with 27 members, including 12 Democrats – telling CNN they have not yet decided how they plan to vote. Representatives from five offices – two Democrats and three Republicans – told CNN they are not announcing how they are voting.
“I will look closely at the details of this budget and evaluate how it meets the needs of New Mexicans and our country as a whole,” Democrat Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told CNN. Republicans also remain undecided, like John Cornyn of Texas, whose spokesman told CNN that the senator “will take a close look” at the deal but “is concerned about reversing spending cuts.”
For this vote count, CNN has reached out to all 100 Senate offices and 12 have not responded.
Segment 0: U.S. District Court Rules National Security Agency (NSA)’s Phone Surveillance Program Unconstitutional — Videos
Judge rules NSA spying program likely unconstitutional
Federal Judge Rules NSA Spying On All American Phone Calls Unconstitutional
OBAMA defends Massive NSA Spying PRISM program. Taps in to Data of Apple, Google, Skype, Verizon
Sen. Paul Applauds the Protection of Fourth Amendment Rights
Dec 16, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today issued the following statement applauding the U.S. District Court ruling that deemed the National Security Agency’s (NSA) phone surveillance program unconstitutional:
“I commend U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon for upholding and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. This decision represents an important first step in having the constitutionality of government surveillance programs decided in the regular court system rather than a secret court where only one side is presented,” Sen. Paul said. “In June, I introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act which, if enacted, would have restored our Constitutional rights and declared that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause. The NSA phone surveillance program is a blatant abuse of power and an invasion of our privacy. This ruling reminds the Federal government that it is not above the law. I will continue to fight against the violations of American’s Constitutional rights through illegal phone surveillance until it is stopped once and for all.”
Segment 0: Republican Senators Oppose House Budget Deal — Republicans Voting For Deal Will Be Targeted By Tea Party and Conservative Movement Voters — Videos
Breakthrough budget passed in US House of Representatives
“Embrace The Suck”: House Easily Passes Budget Deal
Rep. Paul Ryan on GOP groups budget criticism: “We were a little caught off-guard”
Budget deal passes, what’s next?
Sen. Rand Paul on state of GOP, new budget deal
Senator Rubio React To Compromise Budget Deal Approved By House America’s Newsroom
Wicker to Oppose House-Senate Budget Deal
JEFF SESSIONS: SENATE GOP TO FILIBUSTER PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET DEAL
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking GOP member of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that Senate Republicans plan to filibuster the budget deal that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).
The deal passed the House 332-94, with 62 Republicans and 32 Democrats voting against it. The bill is expected to come up for votes in the Senate early next week, either Monday or Tuesday.
The type of filibuster Sessions spoke of is not the traditional “talking filibuster” like the one Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) launched earlier this year to protest Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s drone policies. It is a procedural filibuster, The Hill reports, that would require Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to at least twice obtain 60 votes to pass the bill.
“They’ll need 60 votes on cloture and 60 votes on the budget point of order,” Sessions said, according to The Hill.
Since there are only 55 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Reid will twice need at least five Republicans to break from their party and support the budget deal. Reid may need more Republicans if liberals like Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) or Bernie Sanders (I-VT) oppose the deal because it does not extend unemployment benefits. Considering 32 Democrats voted against the deal in the House, it seems plausible Reid may lose at least one, maybe two Democrats in the Senate.
Senate Republicans largely seem unified against the bill. As of late Thursday, not one Senate Republican confirmed suppot of the plan.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will vote against it, and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn and GOP conference chairman John Thune have indicated their opposition to it as well. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) has said he opposes it. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Sessions each oppose it too.
Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Roger Wicker (R-MS), who usually support similar measures, have each announced their opposition.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is undecided as of this point, and while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—easily the Senate’s most liberal Republican—has said he is leaning “yes,” he has not yet committed to voting for the deal, citing concerns with military pension cuts in it.
Appropriators like Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have not committed either, according to Roll Call.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Majority Whip in the Senate, confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the Democrats need GOP votes to make this happen.
“We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,” Durbin said. “We need at least five, and I’m hoping that there’ll be more than that. There are not five who Republicans have announced they’re for it, I mean to my knowledge, and I hope there are many more than that, and they’re just holding back for any number of reasons.”
While the deal is more likely to pass the Senate than not, the question becomes about which Republicans — if any — Reid will be able to attract to support the Ryan budget deal.
It’s war! Senate gears up for epic battle as ZERO Republicans line up to support budget agreement (and Democrats need to find at least five)
Congress needs to pass a new budget by January 15 to avoid another government shutdown
Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray negotiated a framework and tried to sell it to their respective majorities
The GOP-led House passed the plan Thursday night despite complaints from tea partiers and other budget hawks
But objections from Senate Republicans, including a claim that the plan restores spending cuts by shortchanging veterans’ pensions, could kill it
A landmark budget agreement that passed in the U.S. House on Thursday faces certain death in the Senate unless at least five Republicans step up to support it – but so far there are no takers at all.
The GOP’s Senate leaders plan to launch a procedural effort to kill the plan over a laundry list of objections – including a claim that it short-changes military veterans and other government retirees.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin conceded that he needs to find Republicans who will vote for the measure after Republicans announced their intention Thursday night to block the deal.
‘We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,’ Durbin told reporters on Thursday. ‘We need at least five. And I’m hoping that there will be more than that.’
Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and the third-most powerful Senate leader, acknowledged that ‘there are not five Republicans who have announced they’re for it.’
In fact, no Republican senators have publicly said that they will vote in favor of the agreement that Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray unveiled Tuesday evening.
Their plan would roll back $63 billion in mandatory cuts from the so-called budget sequester that took effect in March. Some of that restored spending would be offset by cuts to military and civilian government pensions.
Annual cost-of-living increases in most military veterans’ retirement benefits would be cut by 1 per cent, an amount that the Military Officers Association of America says could cost a typical former soldier or sailor $80,000 over a 20-year period.
The GOP’s three most senior senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have announced that they will vote ‘no.’
Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, all considered top-tier presidential contenders in 2016, are all lined up against the measure.
The proposal ‘spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare,’ Cruz said Thursday. ‘I cannot support it.’
Rubio emailed supporters on Wednesday, saying that the agreement Ryan and Murray negotiated over a six-week period ‘continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.’
House Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal — but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill it
And Paul said in a statement that the March sequester cuts ‘were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem. Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed.’
Other Republicans who face primary challenges from tea party-backed candidates are also vowing to cast ‘no’ votes.
‘After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,’ South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement.
‘Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.’
Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, echoed Graham’s complaint.
‘I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,’ Wicker’s Thursday statement read. ‘Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military. … The plan should be rejected.’
Other Republicans object to what one GOP Senate staffer told MailOnline is the agreement’s ‘pixie dust approach to budgeting.’
‘We’re doing what we always do,’ said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ‘We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.’
Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions explained that Democrats will need 60 ‘yes’ votes – on two separate procedural ballots – in order to pass it.
The GOP’s parliamentary roadblocks will have the same effect as a traditional filibuster without consuming countless hours of Senate time when the measure is considered early next week.
Even if Senate Democrats manage to find enough Republican support to pass the agreement, it won’t have the force of law.
What Ryan and Murray proposed Wednesday is merely a framework for a budget that has yet to be written. Members of Congress who sit on appropriation committees will still be required to craft – and pass in both houses – a final budget bill by January 15.
Unless they can pull it off, the federal government will be headed for its second shutdown in three months.
Segment 0: After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
December 6th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (November Jobs Report)
November Unemployment Rate Falls To 7% – Crowley: If This Numbers Are To Be Believed Thats A Big If
Jobs report doesn’t improve outlook for long-term jobless
Nightly Business Report — December 6, 2013
Stock Markets Latest News: Wall St. Eyes Weekly Gain After Jobs Report
Bob Browne: Last week’s strong U.S. jobs report — December 9, 2013
The long-term effects of unemployment among young workers
Friday, December 6, 2013
Larry Kudlow Admits to Being Wrong About Bernanke And The Economy NOT PETER SCHIFF THOUGH!
Employment Level
144,386,000
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
136559(1)
136598
136701
137270
136630
136940
136531
136662
136893
137088
137322
137614
2001
137778
137612
137783
137299
137092
136873
137071
136241
136846
136392
136238
136047
2002
135701
136438
136177
136126
136539
136415
136413
136705
137302
137008
136521
136426
2003
137417(1)
137482
137434
137633
137544
137790
137474
137549
137609
137984
138424
138411
2004
138472(1)
138542
138453
138680
138852
139174
139556
139573
139487
139732
140231
140125
2005
140245(1)
140385
140654
141254
141609
141714
142026
142434
142401
142548
142499
142752
2006
143150(1)
143457
143741
143761
144089
144353
144202
144625
144815
145314
145534
145970
2007
146028(1)
146057
146320
145586
145903
146063
145905
145682
146244
145946
146595
146273
2008
146378(1)
146156
146086
146132
145908
145737
145532
145203
145076
144802
144100
143369
2009
142153(1)
141644
140721
140652
140250
140005
139898
139481
138810
138421
138665
138025
2010
138439(1)
138624
138767
139296
139255
139148
139167
139405
139388
139097
139046
139295
2011
139253(1)
139471
139643
139606
139681
139405
139509
139870
140164
140314
140771
140896
2012
141608(1)
142019
142020
141934
142302
142448
142250
142164
142974
143328
143277
143305
2013
143322(1)
143492
143286
143579
143898
144058
144285
144170
144303
143568
144386
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Civilian Labor Force Level
155,254,000
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level Labor force status: Civilian labor force Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
142267(1)
142456
142434
142751
142388
142591
142278
142514
142518
142622
142962
143248
2001
143800
143701
143924
143569
143318
143357
143654
143284
143989
144086
144240
144305
2002
143883
144653
144481
144725
144938
144808
144803
145009
145552
145314
145041
145066
2003
145937(1)
146100
146022
146474
146500
147056
146485
146445
146530
146716
147000
146729
2004
146842(1)
146709
146944
146850
147065
147460
147692
147564
147415
147793
148162
148059
2005
148029(1)
148364
148391
148926
149261
149238
149432
149779
149954
150001
150065
150030
2006
150214(1)
150641
150813
150881
151069
151354
151377
151716
151662
152041
152406
152732
2007
153144(1)
152983
153051
152435
152670
153041
153054
152749
153414
153183
153835
153918
2008
154063(1)
153653
153908
153769
154303
154313
154469
154641
154570
154876
154639
154655
2009
154232(1)
154526
154142
154479
154742
154710
154505
154300
153815
153804
153887
153120
2010
153455(1)
153702
153960
154577
154110
153623
153709
154078
153966
153681
154140
153649
2011
153244(1)
153269
153358
153478
153552
153369
153325
153707
154074
154010
154096
153945
2012
154356(1)
154825
154707
154451
154998
155149
154995
154647
155056
155576
155319
155511
2013
155654(1)
155524
155028
155238
155658
155835
155798
155486
155559
154839
155294
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.0%
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.1
67.1
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.8
66.9
67.0
2001
67.2
67.1
67.2
66.9
66.7
66.7
66.8
66.5
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
2002
66.5
66.8
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.6
66.4
66.3
2003
66.4
66.4
66.3
66.4
66.4
66.5
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
2004
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
66.1
66.1
66.0
65.8
65.9
66.0
65.9
2005
65.8
65.9
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
2006
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.3
66.4
2007
66.4
66.3
66.2
65.9
66.0
66.0
66.0
65.8
66.0
65.8
66.0
66.0
2008
66.2
66.0
66.1
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
65.8
2009
65.7
65.8
65.6
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.1
65.0
65.0
64.6
2010
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.1
64.9
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.4
64.6
64.3
2011
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.0
64.0
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.1
64.0
2012
63.7
63.9
63.8
63.6
63.8
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.6
63.8
63.6
63.6
2013
63.6
63.5
63.3
63.3
63.4
63.5
63.4
63.2
63.2
62.8
63.0
Employment-Population Ratio
58.6%
Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio Labor force status: Employment-population ratio Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over\
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
64.6
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.4
64.5
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.3
64.4
2001
64.4
64.3
64.3
64.0
63.8
63.7
63.7
63.2
63.5
63.2
63.0
62.9
2002
62.7
63.0
62.8
62.7
62.9
62.7
62.7
62.7
63.0
62.7
62.5
62.4
2003
62.5
62.5
62.4
62.4
62.3
62.3
62.1
62.1
62.0
62.1
62.3
62.2
2004
62.3
62.3
62.2
62.3
62.3
62.4
62.5
62.4
62.3
62.3
62.5
62.4
2005
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.7
62.8
62.7
62.8
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.7
62.8
2006
62.9
63.0
63.1
63.0
63.1
63.1
63.0
63.1
63.1
63.3
63.3
63.4
2007
63.3
63.3
63.3
63.0
63.0
63.0
62.9
62.7
62.9
62.7
62.9
62.7
2008
62.9
62.8
62.7
62.7
62.5
62.4
62.2
62.0
61.9
61.7
61.4
61.0
2009
60.6
60.3
59.9
59.8
59.6
59.4
59.3
59.1
58.7
58.5
58.6
58.3
2010
58.5
58.5
58.5
58.7
58.6
58.5
58.5
58.5
58.5
58.3
58.2
58.3
2011
58.3
58.4
58.4
58.4
58.4
58.2
58.2
58.3
58.4
58.4
58.5
58.6
2012
58.5
58.6
58.5
58.5
58.6
58.6
58.5
58.4
58.7
58.7
58.7
58.6
2013
58.6
58.6
58.5
58.6
58.6
58.7
58.7
58.6
58.6
58.3
58.6
Unemployment Level
10,907,000
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level Labor force status: Unemployed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
5708
5858
5733
5481
5758
5651
5747
5853
5625
5534
5639
5634
2001
6023
6089
6141
6271
6226
6484
6583
7042
7142
7694
8003
8258
2002
8182
8215
8304
8599
8399
8393
8390
8304
8251
8307
8520
8640
2003
8520
8618
8588
8842
8957
9266
9011
8896
8921
8732
8576
8317
2004
8370
8167
8491
8170
8212
8286
8136
7990
7927
8061
7932
7934
2005
7784
7980
7737
7672
7651
7524
7406
7345
7553
7453
7566
7279
2006
7064
7184
7072
7120
6980
7001
7175
7091
6847
6727
6872
6762
2007
7116
6927
6731
6850
6766
6979
7149
7067
7170
7237
7240
7645
2008
7685
7497
7822
7637
8395
8575
8937
9438
9494
10074
10538
11286
2009
12079
12881
13421
13826
14492
14705
14607
14819
15005
15382
15223
15095
2010
15016
15078
15192
15281
14856
14475
14542
14673
14577
14584
15094
14354
2011
13992
13798
13716
13872
13871
13964
13817
13837
13910
13696
13325
13049
2012
12748
12806
12686
12518
12695
12701
12745
12483
12082
12248
12042
12206
2013
12332
12032
11742
11659
11760
11777
11514
11316
11255
11272
10907
U-3 Unemployment Rate
7.0%
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
2001
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.7
2002
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
6.0
2003
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
2004
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.4
2005
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
2006
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
2007
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.0
2008
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
2009
7.8
8.3
8.7
9.0
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
9.9
2010
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.8
9.3
2011
9.1
9.0
8.9
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.6
8.5
2012
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
2013
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.0
U-6 Unemployment Rate
13.2%
Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
2001
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.4
9.6
2002
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.8
2003
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.3
10.3
10.1
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
2004
9.9
9.7
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.7
9.4
9.2
2005
9.3
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.9
9.0
8.7
8.7
8.6
2006
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
7.9
2007
8.4
8.2
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.8
2008
9.2
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.7
10.1
10.5
10.8
11.0
11.8
12.6
13.6
2009
14.2
15.1
15.7
15.9
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.7
17.1
17.1
17.1
2010
16.7
17.0
17.0
17.1
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.8
16.7
16.9
16.6
2011
16.2
16.0
15.8
16.0
15.8
16.1
16.0
16.1
16.3
16.0
15.5
15.2
2012
15.1
15.0
14.5
14.5
14.8
14.8
14.9
14.7
14.7
14.5
14.4
14.4
2013
14.4
14.3
13.8
13.9
13.8
14.3
14.0
13.7
13.6
13.8
13.2
Teenage Unemployment Rate 16-19 Year
20.8%
Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs. Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 to 19 years
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
12.7
13.8
13.3
12.6
12.8
12.3
13.4
14.0
13.0
12.8
13.0
13.2
2001
13.8
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.4
14.2
14.4
15.6
15.2
16.0
15.9
17.0
2002
16.5
16.0
16.6
16.7
16.6
16.7
16.8
17.0
16.3
15.1
17.1
16.9
2003
17.2
17.2
17.8
17.7
17.9
19.0
18.2
16.6
17.6
17.2
15.7
16.2
2004
17.0
16.5
16.8
16.6
17.1
17.0
17.8
16.7
16.6
17.4
16.4
17.6
2005
16.2
17.5
17.1
17.8
17.8
16.3
16.1
16.1
15.5
16.1
17.0
14.9
2006
15.1
15.3
16.1
14.6
14.0
15.8
15.9
16.0
16.3
15.2
14.8
14.6
2007
14.8
14.9
14.9
15.9
15.9
16.3
15.3
15.9
15.9
15.4
16.2
16.8
2008
17.8
16.6
16.1
15.9
19.0
19.2
20.7
18.6
19.1
20.0
20.3
20.5
2009
20.7
22.2
22.2
22.2
23.4
24.7
24.3
25.0
25.9
27.1
26.9
26.6
2010
26.0
25.4
26.2
25.5
26.6
26.0
26.0
25.7
25.8
27.2
24.6
25.1
2011
25.5
24.0
24.4
24.7
24.0
24.7
24.9
25.2
24.4
24.1
23.9
22.9
2012
23.4
23.7
25.0
24.9
24.4
23.7
23.9
24.5
23.7
23.7
23.6
23.5
2013
23.4
25.1
24.2
24.1
24.5
24.0
23.7
22.7
21.4
22.2
20.8
Average Weeks Unemployed
37.2 Weeks
Series Id: LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed Labor force status: Unemployed Type of data: Number of weeks Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
13.1
12.6
12.7
12.4
12.6
12.3
13.4
12.9
12.2
12.7
12.4
12.5
2001
12.7
12.8
12.8
12.4
12.1
12.7
12.9
13.3
13.2
13.3
14.3
14.5
2002
14.7
15.0
15.4
16.3
16.8
16.9
16.9
16.5
17.6
17.8
17.6
18.5
2003
18.5
18.5
18.1
19.4
19.0
19.9
19.7
19.2
19.5
19.3
19.9
19.8
2004
19.9
20.1
19.8
19.6
19.8
20.5
18.8
18.8
19.4
19.5
19.7
19.4
2005
19.5
19.1
19.5
19.6
18.6
17.9
17.6
18.4
17.9
17.9
17.5
17.5
2006
16.9
17.8
17.1
16.7
17.1
16.6
17.1
17.1
17.1
16.3
16.2
16.1
2007
16.3
16.7
17.8
16.9
16.6
16.5
17.2
17.0
16.3
17.0
17.3
16.6
2008
17.5
16.9
16.5
16.9
16.6
17.1
17.0
17.7
18.6
19.9
18.9
19.9
2009
19.8
20.1
20.9
21.6
22.4
23.9
25.1
25.3
26.7
27.4
29.0
29.7
2010
30.4
29.8
31.6
33.2
33.9
34.4
33.8
33.6
33.4
34.0
34.1
34.8
2011
37.3
37.4
39.2
38.6
39.5
39.6
40.4
40.3
40.4
38.9
40.7
40.7
2012
40.2
39.9
39.5
39.1
39.6
39.7
38.8
39.3
39.6
39.9
39.7
38.1
2013
35.3
36.9
37.1
36.5
36.9
35.6
36.6
37.0
36.9
36.1
37.2
Median Weeks Unemployed
17.0 Weeks
Series Id: LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed Labor force status: Unemployed Type of data: Number of weeks Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
5.8
6.1
6.0
6.1
5.8
5.7
6.0
6.3
5.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
2001
5.8
6.1
6.6
5.9
6.3
6.0
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.7
8.2
2002
8.4
8.3
8.4
8.9
9.5
11.0
8.9
9.0
9.5
9.6
9.3
9.6
2003
9.6
9.5
9.7
10.2
9.9
11.5
10.3
10.1
10.2
10.4
10.3
10.4
2004
10.6
10.2
10.2
9.5
9.9
11.0
8.9
9.2
9.6
9.5
9.7
9.5
2005
9.4
9.2
9.3
9.0
9.1
9.0
8.8
9.2
8.4
8.6
8.5
8.7
2006
8.6
9.1
8.7
8.4
8.5
7.3
8.0
8.4
8.0
7.9
8.3
7.5
2007
8.3
8.5
9.1
8.6
8.2
7.7
8.7
8.8
8.7
8.4
8.6
8.4
2008
9.0
8.7
8.7
9.4
7.9
9.0
9.7
9.7
10.2
10.4
9.8
10.5
2009
10.7
11.7
12.3
13.1
14.3
17.1
15.9
16.2
17.8
18.8
19.8
20.2
2010
20.0
20.0
20.5
22.2
22.4
24.8
22.1
20.9
20.2
21.1
21.2
22.1
2011
21.5
21.3
21.8
21.0
21.8
21.8
21.5
22.2
21.9
20.4
21.1
20.8
2012
20.8
20.1
19.7
19.3
20.1
19.4
16.8
18.2
18.7
19.6
18.9
18.0
2013
16.0
17.8
18.1
17.5
17.3
16.3
15.7
16.4
16.3
16.3
17.0
Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
7,719,000
Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
3208
3167
3231
3186
3283
3209
3144
3211
3217
3179
3467
3243
2001
3332
3296
3280
3289
3439
3792
3556
3380
4233
4437
4317
4393
2002
4112
4289
4101
4199
4103
4048
4145
4301
4329
4314
4329
4321
2003
4607
4844
4652
4798
4570
4592
4648
4419
4882
4813
4862
4750
2004
4705
4549
4742
4568
4588
4443
4449
4474
4487
4820
4547
4427
2005
4389
4250
4388
4278
4315
4432
4400
4491
4675
4269
4219
4115
2006
4123
4174
3972
3900
4111
4318
4303
4195
4115
4352
4190
4187
2007
4279
4220
4253
4313
4473
4342
4410
4576
4521
4325
4494
4618
2008
4846
4902
4904
5220
5286
5540
5930
5851
6148
6690
7311
8029
2009
8042
8788
9076
8904
9103
9051
8941
9030
8869
9005
9103
9092
2010
8493
8897
9122
9171
8816
8646
8610
8826
9226
8913
8862
8933
2011
8432
8398
8525
8649
8562
8536
8416
8816
9101
8726
8436
8168
2012
8220
8127
7664
7896
8116
8210
8245
8043
8607
8286
8138
7918
2013
7973
7988
7638
7916
7904
8226
8245
7911
7926
8050
7719
Employment Situation News Release
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until USDL-13-2315
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 6, 2013
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 • cpsinfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 • cesinfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2013
The unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent in November, and total
nonfarm payroll employment rose by 203,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment increased in transportation and warehousing, health care,
and manufacturing.
Household Survey Data
Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.9 million, and the unemployment rate, at
7.0 percent, declined in November. Among the unemployed, the number who reported being
on temporary layoff decreased by 377,000. This largely reflects the return to work of
federal employees who were furloughed in October due to the partial government shutdown.
(See tables A-1 and A-11.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.7 percent),
adult women (6.2 percent), teenagers (20.8 percent), whites (6.2 percent), blacks
(12.5 percent), and Hispanics (8.7 percent) changed little in November. The jobless
rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year
earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks declined by 300,000 in November,
partially reflecting the return to work of federal employees on furlough in October.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially
unchanged at 4.1 million in November. These individuals accounted for 37.3 percent of
the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 718,000 over the
past 12 months. (See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force rose by 455,000 in November, after declining by 720,000 in
October. The labor force participation rate changed little (63.0 percent) in November.
Total employment as measured by the household survey increased by 818,000 over the
month, following a decline of 735,000 in the prior month. This over-the-month increase
in employment partly reflected the return to work of furloughed federal government
employees. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.3 percentage point to 58.6
percent in November, reversing a decline of the same size in the prior month. (See
table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 331,000 to 7.7 million in November. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In November, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
409,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a
job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 762,000 discouraged workers in November, down
by 217,000 from a year ago. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available
for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in
November had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 203,000 in November. Job growth averaged
195,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred in
transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)
Employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 31,000 in November, with gains
in couriers and messengers (+9,000), truck transportation (+8,000), warehousing and
storage (+5,000), and air transportation (+3,000).
Health care employment continued to increase over the month (+28,000). Job gains occurred
in home healthcare services (+12,000) and offices of physicians (+7,000), while nursing
care facilities lost jobs (-4,000). Job growth in health care has averaged 19,000 per
month thus far this year, compared with an average monthly gain of 27,000 in 2012.
In November, manufacturing added 27,000 jobs. Within the industry, job gains occurred in
food manufacturing (+8,000) and in motor vehicles and parts (+7,000).
In November, employment in professional and business services continued to trend up
(+35,000). Over the prior 12 months, the industry added an average of 55,000 jobs per
month.
Retail trade employment also continued to expand in November (+22,000). Within the
industry, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+14,000); in sporting
goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+12,000); and in automobile dealers (+7,000).
Over the prior 12 months, job growth in retail trade averaged 31,000 per month.
Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places continued
to trend up in November (+18,000). Job growth in this industry averaged 28,000 per month
over the prior 12 months.
Employment in construction continued to trend up in November (+17,000). Monthly job
gains in the industry averaged 15,000 over the prior 12 months.
Federal government employment continued to decline (-7,000) in November. Over the past
12 months, federal government employment has decreased by 92,000.
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, wholesale trade,
information, and financial activities, showed little or no change in November.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in November. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour
to 41.0 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average
workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $24.15. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 48 cents,
or 2.0 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 3 cents to $20.31. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +163,000
to +175,000, and the change for October was revised from +204,000 to +200,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 8,000 higher
than previously reported.
_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 10, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Household Survey Reference Period |
| |
|In the household survey, the reference period for November 2013 was the calendar week |
|that included the 5th of the month. Typically, the reference period for the household |
|survey is the calendar week that includes the 12th of the month. The November reference|
|week was moved up in 2013 due to the timing of the November and December holidays. In |
|accordance with usual practice, this change is made in November when necessary to allow|
|for sufficient time to process data and conduct survey operations. |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data |
| |
|In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation release for December 2013, |
|scheduled for January 10, 2014, will incorporate annual revisions in seasonally adjusted|
|unemployment and other labor force series from the household survey. Seasonally adjusted|
|data for the most recent 5 years are subject to revision. |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Upcoming Change to the Household Survey Tables |
| |
|Effective with the release of January 2014 data on February 7, 2014, household survey |
|table A-10 will include two new seasonally adjusted series for women age 55 and over— |
|the number of unemployed persons and the unemployment rate. These will replace the |
|series that are currently displayed for this group, which are not seasonally adjusted.|
| |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category
Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013
Nov.
2013
Change from:
Oct.
2013-
Nov.
2013
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
244,174
246,168
246,381
246,567
186
Civilian labor force
155,319
155,559
154,839
155,294
455
Participation rate
63.6
63.2
62.8
63.0
0.2
Employed
143,277
144,303
143,568
144,386
818
Employment-population ratio
58.7
58.6
58.3
58.6
0.3
Unemployed
12,042
11,255
11,272
10,907
-365
Unemployment rate
7.8
7.2
7.3
7.0
-0.3
Not in labor force
88,855
90,609
91,541
91,273
-268
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
7.8
7.2
7.3
7.0
-0.3
Adult men (20 years and over)
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.7
-0.3
Adult women (20 years and over)
7.0
6.2
6.4
6.2
-0.2
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
23.6
21.4
22.2
20.8
-1.4
White
6.8
6.3
6.3
6.2
-0.1
Black or African American
13.2
12.9
13.1
12.5
-0.6
Asian (not seasonally adjusted)
6.4
5.3
5.2
5.3
–
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
9.9
9.0
9.1
8.7
-0.4
Total, 25 years and over
6.5
6.0
6.1
5.9
-0.2
Less than a high school diploma
12.1
10.3
10.9
10.8
-0.1
High school graduates, no college
8.1
7.6
7.3
7.3
0.0
Some college or associate degree
6.6
6.0
6.3
6.4
0.1
Bachelor’s degree and higher
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.4
-0.4
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
6,429
5,844
6,253
5,804
-449
Job leavers
926
989
861
893
32
Reentrants
3,325
3,181
3,117
3,073
-44
New entrants
1,326
1,222
1,223
1,165
-58
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,596
2,596
2,761
2,461
-300
5 to 14 weeks
2,757
2,703
2,656
2,597
-59
15 to 26 weeks
1,820
1,804
1,782
1,766
-16
27 weeks and over
4,784
4,146
4,063
4,066
3
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
8,138
7,926
8,050
7,719
-331
Slack work or business conditions
5,084
4,960
5,047
4,869
-178
Could only find part-time work
2,648
2,557
2,599
2,486
-113
Part time for noneconomic reasons
18,594
18,967
18,786
18,876
90
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
2,505
2,302
2,283
2,096
–
Discouraged workers
979
852
815
762
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary
Frequently Asked Questions about Employment and Unemployment Estimates
1. Why are there two monthly measures of employment?
The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates
of employment, and both have strengths and limitations. The establishment survey
employment series has a smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-
month change than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An
over-the-month employment change of about 100,000 is statistically significant in
the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change
in the household survey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more
expansive scope than the establishment survey because it includes self-employed
workers whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, agricultural
workers, and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey.
The household survey also provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.
For more information on the differences between the two surveys, please visit
www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf.
2. Are undocumented immigrants counted in the surveys?
It is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants. However,
neither the establishment nor the household survey is designed to identify the legal
status of workers. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how many are counted in
either survey. The establishment survey does not collect data on the legal status of
workers. The household survey does include questions which identify the foreign and
native born, but it does not include questions about the legal status of the foreign
born. Data on the foreign and native born are published each month in table A-7 of
The Employment Situation news release.
3. Why does the establishment survey have revisions?
The establishment survey revises published estimates to improve its data series by
incorporating additional information that was not available at the time of the
initial publication of the estimates. The establishment survey revises its initial
monthly estimates twice, in the immediately succeeding 2 months, to incorporate
additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal
adjustment factors. For more information on the monthly revisions, please visit
www.bls.gov/ces/cesrevinfo.htm.
On an annual basis, the establishment survey incorporates a benchmark revision that
re-anchors estimates to nearly complete employment counts available from unemployment
insurance tax records. The benchmark helps to control for sampling and modeling errors
in the estimates. For more information on the annual benchmark revision, please visit
www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.
4. Does the establishment survey sample include small firms?
Yes; about 40 percent of the establishment survey sample is comprised of business
establishments with fewer than 20 employees. The establishment survey sample is
designed to maximize the reliability of the statewide total nonfarm employment
estimate; firms from all states, size classes, and industries are appropriately
sampled to achieve that goal.
5. Does the establishment survey account for employment from new businesses?
Yes; monthly establishment survey estimates include an adjustment to account for
the net employment change generated by business births and deaths. The adjustment
comes from an econometric model that forecasts the monthly net jobs impact of
business births and deaths based on the actual past values of the net impact that
can be observed with a lag from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The
establishment survey uses modeling rather than sampling for this purpose because
the survey is not immediately able to bring new businesses into the sample. There
is an unavoidable lag between the birth of a new firm and its appearance on the
sampling frame and availability for selection. BLS adds new businesses to the survey
twice a year.
6. Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment
insurance benefits?
No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are
included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if
they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.
7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently
looking for work?
Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who
want a job, including those who are not currently looking because they believe no
jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor
underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not
officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in table A-15 of The
Employment Situation news release. For more information about these alternative
measures, please visit www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#altmeasures.
8. How can unusually severe weather affect employment and hours estimates?
In the establishment survey, the reference period is the pay period that includes
the 12th of the month. Unusually severe weather is more likely to have an impact on
average weekly hours than on employment. Average weekly hours are estimated for paid
time during the pay period, including pay for holidays, sick leave, or other time off.
The impact of severe weather on hours estimates typically, but not always, results in
a reduction in average weekly hours. For example, some employees may be off work for
part of the pay period and not receive pay for the time missed, while some workers,
such as those dealing with cleanup or repair, may work extra hours.
In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment,
employees have to be off work without pay for the entire pay period. Slightly more
than 20 percent of all employees in the payroll survey sample have a weekly pay
period. Employees who receive pay for any part of the pay period, even 1 hour, are
counted in the payroll employment figures. It is not possible to quantify the effect
of extreme weather on estimates of over-the-month change in employment.
In the household survey, the reference period is generally the calendar week that
includes the 12th of the month. Persons who miss the entire week's work for weather-
related events are counted as employed whether or not they are paid for the time
off. The household survey collects data on the number of persons who had a job but
were not at work due to bad weather. It also provides a measure of the number of
persons who usually work full time but had reduced hours. Current and historical
data are available on the household survey's most requested statistics page at
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln.
Technical Note
This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current
Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics
survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information
on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables,
marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and
earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables,
marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll
records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments. Each month
the CES program surveys about 145,000 businesses and government agencies,
representing approximately 557,000 individual worksites, in order to provide
detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm
payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm
payroll employees.
For both surveys, the data for a given month relate to a particular week or
pay period. In the household survey, the reference period is generally the
calendar week that contains the 12th day of the month. In the establishment
survey, the reference period is the pay period including the 12th, which may or
may not correspond directly to the calendar week.
Coverage, definitions, and differences between surveys
Household survey. The sample is selected to reflect the entire civilian
noninstitutional population. Based on responses to a series of questions on
work and job search activities, each person 16 years and over in a sample
household is classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.
People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the
employed as a percent of the population. Additional information about the
household survey can be found at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm.
Establishment survey. The sample establishments are drawn from private
nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as
from federal, state, and local government entities. Employees on nonfarm
payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay
period, including persons on paid leave. Persons are counted in each job
they hold. Hours and earnings data are produced for the private sector for
all employees and for production and nonsupervisory employees. Production
and nonsupervisory employees are defined as production and related employees
in manufacturing and mining and logging, construction workers in construction,
and nonsupervisory employees in private service-providing industries.
Industries are classified on the basis of an establishment’s principal
activity in accordance with the 2012 version of the North American Industry
Classification System. Additional information about the establishment survey
can be found at www.bls.gov/ces/.
Differences in employment estimates. The numerous conceptual and methodological
differences between the household and establishment surveys result in important
distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are:
--The household survey includes agricultural workers, self-employed workers
whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, and private
household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the
establishment survey.
--The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed.
The establishment survey does not.
--The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older.
The establishment survey is not limited by age.
--The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because
individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one
job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one
job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately
for each appearance.
Seasonal adjustment
Over the course of a year, the size of the nation's labor force and the levels
of employment and unemployment undergo regularly occurring fluctuations. These
events may result from seasonal changes in weather, major holidays, and the opening
and closing of schools. The effect of such seasonal variation can be very large.
Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year,
their influence on the level of a series can be tempered by adjusting for regular
seasonal variation. These adjustments make nonseasonal developments, such as
declines in employment or increases in the participation of women in the labor
force, easier to spot. For example, in the household survey, the large number of
youth entering the labor force each June is likely to obscure any other changes
that have taken place relative to May, making it difficult to determine if the
level of economic activity has risen or declined. Similarly, in the establishment
survey, payroll employment in education declines by about 20 percent at the end
of the spring term and later rises with the start of the fall term, obscuring the
underlying employment trends in the industry. Because seasonal employment changes
at the end and beginning of the school year can be estimated, the statistics can be
adjusted to make underlying employment patterns more discernable. The seasonally
adjusted figures provide a more useful tool with which to analyze changes in
month-to-month economic activity.
Many seasonally adjusted series are independently adjusted in both the household
and establishment surveys. However, the adjusted series for many major estimates,
such as total payroll employment, employment in most major sectors, total employment,
and unemployment are computed by aggregating independently adjusted component series.
For example, total unemployment is derived by summing the adjusted series for four
major age-sex components; this differs from the unemployment estimate that would be
obtained by directly adjusting the total or by combining
the duration, reasons, or more detailed age categories.
For both the household and establishment surveys, a concurrent seasonal adjustment
methodology is used in which new seasonal factors are calculated each month using all
relevant data, up to and including the data for the current month. In the household
survey, new seasonal factors are used to adjust only the current month's data. In the
establishment survey, however, new seasonal factors are used each month to adjust the
three most recent monthly estimates. The prior 2 months are routinely revised to
incorporate additional sample reports and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors.
In both surveys, 5-year revisions to historical data are made once a year.
Reliability of the estimates
Statistics based on the household and establishment surveys are subject to both
sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population,
is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true
population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs
because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability
is measured by the standard error of the estimate. There is about a 90-percent
chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by
no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value because of sampling
error. BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence.
For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 90,000.
Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment increases by 50,000 from one month to
the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from
-40,000 to +140,000 (50,000 +/- 90,000). These figures do not mean that the sample
results are off by these magnitudes, but rather that there is about a 90-percent
chance that the true over-the-month change lies within this interval. Since this
range includes values of less than zero, we could not say with confidence that
nonfarm employment had, in fact, increased that month. If, however, the reported
nonfarm employment rise was 250,000, then all of the values within the 90- percent
confidence interval would be greater than zero. In this case, it is likely (at
least a 90-percent chance) that nonfarm employment had, in fact, risen that month.
At an unemployment rate of around 6.0 percent, the 90-percent confidence interval
for the monthly change in unemployment as measured by the household survey is
about +/- 300,000, and for the monthly change in the unemployment rate it is about
+/- 0.2 percentage point.
In general, estimates involving many individuals or establishments have lower
standard errors (relative to the size of the estimate) than estimates which are based
on a small number of observations. The precision of estimates also is improved when
the data are cumulated over time, such as for quarterly and annual averages.
The household and establishment surveys are also affected by nonsampling error,
which can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the
population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample,
inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information on a
timely basis, mistakes made by respondents, and errors made in the collection or
processing of the data.
For example, in the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months
are based on incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled
preliminary in the tables. It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly
estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is
considered final.
Another major source of nonsampling error in the establishment survey is the
inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms. To
correct for this systematic underestimation of employment growth, an estimation
procedure with two components is used to account for business births. The first
component excludes employment losses from business deaths from sample-based
estimation in order to offset the missing employment gains from business births.
This is incorporated into the sample-based estimation procedure by simply not
reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same
employment trend as the other firms in the sample. This procedure accounts for
most of the net birth/death employment.
The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the
residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The
historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from
the unemployment insurance universe micro- level database, and reflects the actual
residual net of births and deaths over the past 5 years.
The sample-based estimates from the establishment survey are adjusted once a
year (on a lagged basis) to universe counts of payroll employment obtained from
administrative records of the unemployment insurance program. The difference
between the March sample-based employment estimates and the March universe counts
is known as a benchmark revision, and serves as a rough proxy for total survey
error. The new benchmarks also incorporate changes in the classification of
industries. Over the past decade, absolute benchmark revisions for total nonfarm
employment have averaged 0.3 percent, with a range from -0.7 to 0.6 percent.
Other information
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay
Service: (800) 877-8339.
Segment: 0: Tea Party and Conservatives Revolt Over Trivial Budget Deal — Videos
BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)
ACCOUNTING DATE: 11/13
PERIOD RECEIPTS OUTLAYS DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+ ____________________________________________________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
PRIOR YEAR
OCTOBER 184,316 304,311 119,995
NOVEMBER 161,730 333,841 172,112
DECEMBER 269,508 270,699 1,191
JANUARY 272,225 269,342 -2,883
FEBRUARY 122,815 326,354 203,539
MARCH 186,018 292,548 106,530
APRIL 406,723 293,834 -112,889
MAY 197,182 335,914 138,732
JUNE 286,627 170,126 -116,501
JULY 200,030 297,627 97,597
AUGUST 185,370 333,293 147,923
SEPTEMBER 301,469 226,355 -75,114
YEAR-TO-DATE 2,774,011 3,454,243 680,232
CURRENT YEAR
OCTOBER 198,927 290,520 91,592
NOVEMBER 182,453 317,679 135,226
YEAR-TO-DATE 381,380 608,199 226,819
House Speaker Boehner Slams Conservative Groups For Opposing Budget Deal – Cavuto
Sen. Mike Lee • ObamaCare • Budget Deal • Hannity • 12/11/13 •
Rand Paul on Budget Deal: ‘I Can’t Believe Any Conservative Would Consider This Budget Deal’
Mark Levin to Paul Ryan: Budget Deal is ‘Mickey Mouse’
Two year budget deal announced to avoid gov’t shut down
Reaction to lawmakers announcing budget agreement
New Budget Deal Announced By Ryan and Murray
Key congressional budget negotiators on Tuesday said they reached a budget agreement to avert a government shutdown and bring a rare dose of stability to Congress’s fiscal policy-making over the next two years.
Key lawmakers from both parties announced Tuesday a bipartisan budget proposal that would avoid another government shutdown and restore some defense spending that would have been lost to upcoming sequester cuts.
Rep. Paul Ryan, brushing aside objections from some fiscal conservatives that the proposal would undo spending caps that have helped slow the growth of the federal deficit, told reporters the compromise is a win for the GOP.
Mr. Ryan, at a joint news conference with Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, said the spending plan calls for reducing the deficit by $23 billion over 10 years without raising taxes.
The Wisconsin Republican, the House’s chief budget writer, said the deal would reverse about $65 billion in previously agreed-upon automatic spending cuts to the military and other government programs.
“I see this agreement as a step in the right direction,” he said. “In divided government, you don’t always get what you want. That said, we still can make progress toward our goals. I see this agreement as that kind of progress.”
“Earlier this year, I called on Congress to work together on a balanced approach to a budget that grows our economy faster and creates more jobs — not through aimless, reckless spending cuts that harm our economy now, but by making sure we can afford to invest in the things that have always grown our economy and strengthened our middle class,” Mr. Obama said. “Today’s bipartisan budget agreement is a good first step.”
The House-Senate deal sets the top-line spending number at $1.012 trillion for the rest of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and $1.014 trillion for fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1.
The proposed spending is more than the levels lawmakers approved in the 2011 Budget Control Act, which would have capped non-mandatory government spending at $967 billion in 2014, with the cuts coming from, among other places, the military, Veterans Affairs and the FBI.
The details of the deal remained sketchy as of press time, though Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Murray said they would post the proposal on their respective websites and it would require that federal employees and members of the military pay more for their retirement benefits.
“We think it’s only right and fair that they pay something more toward their pensions just like the hardworking taxpayer who pays for those pensions in the first place,” Mr. Ryan said.
The deal faces challenges from both the political left and the right, with conservatives warning that they could not support a deal that increased spending levels and liberals pushing back against making federal employees contribute more to their pensions.
Democrats also are frustrated with the growing prospect that Congress will not come up with the $26 billion to extend unemployment benefits for more than 1.3 million people through the end of next year.
Mrs. Murray acknowledged that neither side got everything it wanted, but that the compromise will bring some stability to a government that has been run by fiscal crisis for years.
“We have some differences in policies, but we agree that our country needs some certainty and we need to show that we can work together,” she said.
Conservative groups, meanwhile, pushed back against reports that the deal includes higher “fees” and other gimmicks that critics say are tax hikes in disguise, including fees on airline tickets.
Chris Edwards, editor of DownsizingGovernment.org at the Cato Institute, said it would be hard for Republicans to get conservatives to back a proposal that surrenders ground on the sequesters.
“Politically, I just think it’s crazy for Republicans. Here is the one big thing, they can say, ‘We held President Obama’s feet to the fire and passed the Budget Control Act of 2011.’ It’s really paying dividends now, spending has been flat for the past two years,” he said. “They are going to be throwing away their single biggest accomplishment on fiscal policy for the past few years. It would be like President Obama throwing away Obamacare.”
By breaking the budget caps set in 2011, the deal also sets the precedent that the numbers can be changed in future years, Mr. Edwards said.
“[Appropriators] are just playing trench warfare, pushing the trench forward a year at a time. If they break the cap this year, they’ll feel empowered to push hard and try to break the caps next year,” he said.
Heritage Action said that it could not support a budget deal that “would increase spending in the near-term for promises of woefully inadequate long-term reductions.”
“While imperfect, the sequester has proven to be an effective tool in forcing Congress to reduce discretionary spending, and a gimmicky, spend-now-cut-later deal will take our nation in the wrong direction,” the conservative think tank said in a statement.
Mr. Ryan said the House would vote on the plan before the end of the week and launched a pre-emptive strike against potential critics of the plan.
“As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists,” Mr. Ryan said. “I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way I want them to be.”
Congress was on the verge of the first bipartisan budget deal in nearly three decades on Tuesday night after Democrat and Republican negotiators unveiled a proposal to fix federal spending at $1.012tn.
The long-awaited agreement struck between senator Patty Murray and congressman Paul Ryan staves off the threat of another government shutdown for two years and will relieve the worst effects of blanket budget cuts known as the sequester.
Aspects of the deal may alarm both parties, particularly Democrats, who are being asked to accept additional spending cuts, no new taxes and increased pension contributions from public sector workers.
Nevertheless the prospect of ending years of political deadlock appeared to satisfy political leaders of both parties, whose expectations have been lowered by the recent government shutdown and a virtual standstill on a host of other issues.
Barack Obama declared the budget deal “a good first step” and both House speaker John Boehner and and majority leader Eric Cantor indicated they would allow a vote to pass with a mixture of Republican and Democrat support.
Congress has been deadlocked over the budget since Democrats lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections and the proposal from Murray and Ryan represents the first realistic chance of a divided government agreeing a formal budget since 1986.
If passed by the House and Senate, the two-year deal would fix federal spending at $1.012tn in 2014 and $1.014tn in 2015 – roughly halfway between the $1.058tn sought by Democrats in the Senate and the $967bn proposed by the Republican-controlled House.
The blanket sequester cuts would be reduced by $63bn over the two years, split equally between defence and non-defence spending, although Republicans also succeeded in negotiating a further $20-$23bn in deficit reduction.
Rather than raising new taxes to pay for the sequester relief – something Republicans were implacably opposed to – negotiators agreed to raise additional government revenue through fees, such as airport charges and by demanding that federal workers pay more toward their pensions.
Union umbrella group, the AFL-CIO, has already hit out at the proposal, arguing that federal workers were acting as a “punching bag” for Republicans.
There was also no agreement over the vexed issue of long-term unemployment benefits, which are due to expire shortly, or any agreement on medicare or social security reforms, which Republicans had been pushing for.
Senator Patty Murray, Democratic chair of the budget committee, admitted much was missing from the deal.
We need to acknowledge that there are long-term structural problems that this deal does not address,” she told reporters. “This deal does not solve all of our problems but it is an important step.”
“For far too long here in Washington DC, compromise has been a dirty word, especially when it comes to the budget,” added Murray.
“For years we have lurched from crisis to crisis. That uncertainty was devastating to our fragile economic recovery.”
Ryan also portrayed the deal as a major breakthrough but played down expectations among his own supporters.
“The agreement is a clear improvement on the status quo … it makes sure we don’t lurch from crisis to crisis,” said the chairman of the House budget committee.
“We have been talking all year, but that hard work has paid off. In divided government you don’t always get what you want.”
The proposal, which will be voted on by the House later this week, was also welcomed by the White House.
“This agreement doesn’t include everything I’d like – and I know many Republicans feel the same way,” President Obama said in a statement. “That’s the nature of compromise. But it’s a good sign that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were able to come together and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making to get this done.”
Tea party groups and fiscal conservatives wasted no time Wednesday in savaging a bipartisan budget agreement negotiated between House Republicans and Senate Democrats, drawing an unusually angry response from House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
All sides were rating the winners and losers in the deal struck a day earlier between House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, Washington Democrat. The modest deficit-cutting deal had some sweeteners for defense contractors and oil drillers, while air travelers, federal workers and some corporate executives would take a hit.
But most of the passion focused on the politics of the deal, with Mr. Ryan, Mr. Boehner and the House GOPleadership defending their handiwork from attacks from conservative colleagues on Capitol Hill and from outside groups such as the Club for Growth, Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity. Critics said the agreement effectively raised taxes in the form of higher fees, failed to restrain entitlement programs and permitted new spending in the short term in exchange for vague promises of long-term cuts.
Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said in an interview that Republicans sacrificed their biggest point of leverage — the tough “sequester” spending cuts that were already in force — in the rush to get a short-term deal that did not address the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
“I am against [the deal] from just a basic point that we embarked on a position at the beginning of the year that said, ‘We will keep the sequester in place unless we get to make changes on mandatory spending that will save those program and put the budget on path to balance within the next 10 years,’” Mr. Jordan said.
Added Chris Chocola, president of the fiscally hawkish Club for Growth, “Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors. If Republicans work with Democrats to pass this deal, it should surprise no one when Republican voters seek alternatives who actually believe in less spending when they go to the ballot box.”
Despite conservative unhappiness and tepid reviews from many House Democrats, the proposal could be voted on in the House as early as Thursday and Mr. Ryan said Wednesday on CNN that he is confident he has the votes to pass the bill.
Mr. Boehner used unusually pointed language in hitting back at conservative opponents of the deal, charging that critics opposed the agreement even before knowing what was in it.
“They’re using our members and the American people to their own purposes,” an angry Mr. Boehner said. “This is ridiculous.”
But several Republican senators, including Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, immediately came out against the deal and many other Republican senators are expected to oppose the accord.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday that the bulk of the plan’s deficit reduction would come in the final three years of the deal, while the new spending would happen over the next two years.
The estimate followed news that the U.S. government ran a $135.2 billion budget deficit through the first two months of the year — well short of the $226.8 billion deficit the nation had built up by this time a year ago. The Treasury Department said that more revenue was coming into the federal government thanks to higher tax rates and an improving economy.
The Ryan-Murray agreement increases spending in 2014 to $1.012 trillion and in 2015 to $1.014 trillion and restores more than $60 billion in sequester spending cuts.
The new spending is offset in part by lowering the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees, requiring higher pension contributions from recently hired federal employees and raising fees on travelers collected by the Transportation Security Administration.
Some winners in the deal included the Pentagon and the defense industry, where much of the defense-related sequester cuts were restored, and the energy industry, which won expanded rights for joint drilling along the U.S.-Mexico border and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Industries and interests that emerged as losers in the final deal were quick to make their unhappiness known.
“As we have said consistently, airlines and our customers are already overtaxed, and we are disappointed that fees on air travel were increased, and believe those higher taxes will impact demand, jobs and our economy,” said Katie Connell, spokeswoman for Airlines for America, a Washington-based trade group representing U.S. airlines.
The National Treasury Employees Union launched a pre-emptive strike against the proposal, saying last week that federal employees had suffered enough under pay freezes and furloughs.
“We continue to believe that there should be zero cuts to federal pay and benefits in this deal and that federal employees are being asked to contribute a disproportionate share toward deficit reduction,” the group said Wednesday.
National Nurses United took issues with the cuts aimed at federal workers, especially nurses working in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
“There is no reason to cheer an agreement that requires unwarranted pension cuts for federal workers, including VA nurses who earned that pension, underfunds nutrition programs and fails to extend assistance for the long-term unemployed,” said Jean Ross, co-president of the nurses group.
Military members said they are also bearing more than their fair share of the government’s financial problems. Military retirees’ cost-of-living allowance will be decreased to 1 percent below the inflation rate, leading to a 20 percent cut to retirement benefits over their lives, according to a statement from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“The budget agreement balances the budget on the backs of military retirees. It’s the latest example of how Washington is broken, forcing those who have sacrificed the most over the last 10 years to choose between this deal, sequestration or government shutdown,” said Paul Rieckhoff, chief executive officer of IAVA.
Many liberal lawmakers said the federal budget should not be balanced on the backs of federal workers and that the bill could have trouble passing if it does not extend unemployment insurance for the 1.3 million Americans who are set to get kicked off the rolls before the end of the year.
“That does put the overall effort at risk,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat.
Tea party and conservative groups pounced on the budget proposal that congressional leaders carved out behind closed doors, saying that the plan is based on the faulty premise of increasing spending now in exchange for future spending cuts that will never materialize.
They said that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, the GOP budget negotiator, can kiss goodbye any chance of winning over grassroots activists if he chooses to run for president in 2016 after he surrendered ground on across-the-board “sequester” cuts to spending rolled back in the new deal.
“While no one was expecting a grand bargain, we hoped that the budget leaders would stand by the only fiscally responsible accomplishment of Obama’s presidency: sequestration,” said Amy Kremer, chairwoman of the Tea Party Express. “This budget deal creates a faux peace in Washington, D.C., while burdening taxpayers by sweeping the impending fiscal crisis under the rug.”
Mr. Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, announced late Tuesday that they had reached a two-year budget deal that would reduce the deficit by $23 billion over ten years without raising taxes.
The proposal restored $63 billion on the across-the-board “sequester” cuts to defense and non-defense programs. It also included higher fees on airline travel and requires federal employees to contribute more for their retirement benefits.
Judson Phillips, the leader of Tea Party Nation, likened the proposal to a character in the long-running comic strip Popeye, calling it “the Wellington Wimpy budget deal.”
“Paul Ryan is telling America that he will gladly pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today,” Mr. Phillips said. “It should forever dissuade us of the idea that the Republican Party is the party of fiscal conservatism.”
Mr. Phillips said that Mr. Ryan has shown that he is “is another Washington insider who will talk to the public about how fiscally conservative he is and then he goes to Washington and wants to spend money like a drunken Democrat.”
“As far as the conservative movement is concern, Ryan is not only the 2016 candidate of ‘no,’ but ‘hell no.’ There is no way he will have grassroots support after this deal,” he said.
For his part, Mr. Ryan, who has no ruled out a presidential run, told reporters that the the plan is a step in the right direction because it achieves deficit reduction without increasing taxes.
“As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists,” Mr. Ryan said. “I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way things I want them to be.”
Segment 0: Inventory Increases of 1.7% Pumps Up U.S. Real GDP in 3rd Quarter 2013 to 3.6% — Videos
Breaking views: U.S. growth mirage
Fall of the dollar 2014 – America Economy Will Soon Collapse! – Peter Schiff
Peter Schiff – Whatever the Fed Does, Gold Will Rally! US Economy Already Ruined!
Peter Schiff was Right – The party is over, Ben Stein thinks the earnings are huge
Peter Schiff: US lost ability to produce, can’t live without debt
EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013
BEA 13-57
* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2013 (second estimate);
Corporate Profits, 3rd quarter 2013 (preliminary estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.6 percent in the third quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.5 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.8
percent (see "Revisions" on page 3). With this second estimate for the third quarter, the increase in
private inventory investment was larger than previously estimated.
The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset
by a negative contribution from federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.
The acceleration in real GDP growth in the third quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in
private inventory investment, a deceleration in imports, and an acceleration in state and local
government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in exports, in PCE, and in nonresidential
fixed investment.
_________
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related
to this release. For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components".
_________
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.8 percent in the third quarter, the same increase as in the advance estimate; this index
increased 0.2 percent in the second quarter. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 0.8 percent
in the second.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.8 percent in the second. Durable goods increased 7.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 6.2 percent. Nondurable goods increased 2.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent. Services was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter, services increased 1.2
percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.7 percent in the second. Nonresidential structures increased 13.8 percent, compared with
an increase of 17.6 percent. Equipment was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter,
equipment increased 3.3 percent. Intellectual property products increased 1.7 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.5 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 13.0 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.2 percent.
Real exports of goods and services increased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 8.0 percent in the second. Real imports of goods and services increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 6.9 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.4 percent
in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of 1.6 percent in the second. National defense decreased
0.3 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.6 percent. Nondefense decreased 3.1 percent, the same
decrease as in the second quarter. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase of 0.4 percent.
The change in real private inventories added 1.68 percentage points to the third-quarter change in
real GDP, after adding 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change. Private businesses increased
inventories $116.5 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $56.6 billion in the second quarter
and $42.2 billion in the first.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.9
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the second.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the
second.
Gross national product
Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent in the second. GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which increased $13.7 billion in the third quarter after increasing $7.7 billion in the second; in the
third quarter, receipts increased $1.7 billion, and payments decreased $12.1billion.
Current-dollar GDP
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
5.6 percent, or $229.8 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $16,890.8 billion. In the second quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 3.1 percent, or $125.7 billion.
Gross domestic income
Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of 3.2 percent (revised) in the second. For a given quarter, the estimates of
GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent
source data. However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar
patterns of change.
Revisions
The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
private inventory investment and to nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upward
revision to imports and a downward revision to exports.
Advance Estimate Second Estimate
(Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP................................................ 2.8 3.6
Current-dollar GDP...................................... 4.8 5.6
Gross domestic purchases price index.................... 1.8 1.8
Corporate Profits
Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $38.3 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $66.8 billion in the second. Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion, in contrast to
an increase of $10.0 billion. Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $43.0 billion, compared
with an increase of $56.9 billion.
Dividends decreased $179.7 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $273.5
billion in the second. The large third-quarter decrease primarily reflected dividends paid by Fannie Mae
to the federal government in the second quarter. Undistributed profits increased $222.8 billion, in
contrast to a decrease of $216.6 billion. Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to
corporations for investment -- increased $234.5 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $205.3 billion.
_________
BOX. Profits from current production reflect the depreciation of
fixed assets valued at current cost using consistent depreciation profiles.
These profiles are based on used-asset prices and do not depend on the
depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns. The IVA and CCAdj are
adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of fixed assets reported on a tax-return,
historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in the national income and product
accounts.
_________
Corporate profits by industry
Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $8.6 billion in the third quarter, compared to
an increase of $24.5 billion in the second. Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased $13.0
billion, compared to an increase of $37.8 billion.
The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $16.7 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $4.6 billion in the second. This measure is calculated as the difference between
receipts from rest of the world and payments to rest of the world.
Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business
In the third quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per
unit of real value added increased. The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices that
was partly offset by increases in both unit labor costs and nonlabor costs incurred by corporations.
* * *
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- December 20, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2013 (Third Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Third Quarter (Revised Estimate)
* * *
Segment 0: Confirmed 4 Dead and 63 Injured in New York City Train Derailment — Brakes Failed? — Videos
Witness Interviews on New York MTA Metro-North Train Derail, 4 Passengers Dead
Metro-North Poughkeepsie to Grand Central Terminal Passenger Train Derails in Bronx New York
MTA Metro-North Train derails in New York at Spitting Devil’s Curve, Passenger Deaths Confirmed
Metro North Train Derails in Bronx area of New York City[RAW FOOTOGE]
Metro-North train derails in The Bronx
Metro-North Poughkeepsie to Grand Central Terminal Train Derailment Initial Information
Member Weener briefs media on Bronx, N.Y., Metro North train derailment, December 1, 2013
NTSB: Train going too fast at curve before wreck
A commuter train that derailed over the weekend, killing four passengers, was hurtling at 82 mph as it entered a 30 mph curve, a federal investigator said Monday. But whether the wreck was the result of human error or mechanical trouble was unclear, he said.
Safety experts said the tragedy might have been prevented if Metro-North Railroad had installed automated crash-avoidance technology that safety authorities have been urging for decades.
The locomotive’s speed was extracted from the train’s two data recorders after the Sunday morning accident, which happened in the Bronx along a bend so sharp that the speed limit drops from 70 mph to 30 mph.
Asked why the train was going so fast, National Transportation Safety Board member Earl Weener said: “That’s the question we need to answer.”
Weener would not disclose what the engineer operating the train told investigators, and he said results of drug and alcohol tests were not yet available. Investigators are also examining the engineer’s cellphone, apparently to determine whether he was distracted.
“When I heard about the speed, I gulped,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
The engineer, William Rockefeller, was injured and “is totally traumatized by everything that has happened,” said Anthony Bottalico, executive director of the rail employees union.
He said Rockefeller, 46, was cooperating fully with investigators.
“He’s a sincere human being with an impeccable record that I know of. He’s diligent and competent,” Bottalico said. Rockefeller has been an engineer for about 11 years and a Metro-North employee for about 20, he said.
Weener sketched a scenario that suggested that the throttle was let up and the brakes were fully applied way too late to stave off disaster.
He said the throttle went to idle six seconds before the derailed train came to a complete stop — “very late in the game” for a train going that fast — and the brakes were fully engaged five seconds before the train stopped.
It takes about a mile for a train going 70 mph to stop, according to Steve Ditmeyer, a former Federal Railroad Administration official who now teaches at Michigan State University.
Asked whether the tragedy was the result of human error or faulty brakes, Weener said: “The answer is, at this point in time, we can’t tell.”
But he said investigators are not aware of any problems with the brakes during the nine stops the train made before the derailment.
The wreck came two years before the federal government’s deadline for Metro-North and other railroads to install automatic-slowdown technology designed to prevent catastrophes caused by human error.
Metro-North’s parent agency and other railroads have pressed the government to extend Congress’ 2015 deadline a few years because of the cost and complexity of the Positive Train Control system, which uses GPS, wireless radio and computers to monitor trains and stop them from colliding, derailing or going the wrong way.
Ditmeyer said the technology would have monitored the brakes and would not have allowed the train in Sunday’s tragedy to exceed the speed limit.
4 dead, 63 injured in NYC train derail ‘bloodbath’
By Larry Celona, Jamie Schram and Kevin Sheehan
A Metro-North train loaded with holiday travelers derailed as it hurtled around a tight Bronx curve just north of Manhattan on Sunday — leaving at least four dead and 63 injured in a crash the engineer blamed on brake malfunction.
“It was just a bloodbath,” a shaken FDNY worker said of the scene of twisted metal and shattered glass along a bucolic stretch of the Hudson River, where the accident occurred just north of the Spuyten Duyvil station at 7:22 a.m.
Rescue crews were still working early Monday morning to right three of the seven derailed passenger cars to look for more possible bodies.
The train’s operator — 20-year MTA veteran William Rockefeller, 46, of upstate Germantown — was said to have told emergency responders that the brakes didn’t work.
“The guy’s distraught over the accident and the people who were injured,” a source said of Rockefeller, who was among those hurt.
All of those killed were New Yorkers. They included two women — Ahn Kisook, 35, of Queens, and Donna Smith, 54, of Newburgh — as well as married dads James Ferrari, 59, of Montrose and James Lovell, 58, of Cold Spring.
Three of the dead were thrown from the Hudson Line train, which had originated in Poughkeepsie at 5:54 a.m., bound for Grand Central. Their bodies were recovered between the second and third cars.
Passenger Emilie Miyauchi, 28, said she used her yoga mat to cover one of the victims.
“[She] seemed like she had lost most of her head. The side of the car was just covered in her blood,” she recalled.
Injured passengers are removed from the derailed Metro-North train.Photo: William Farrington
It was the first time any passenger had been killed in Metro-North’s 31-year history.
Riders described chaos as the train flew off the tracks.
“I was just holding on . . . and people were flying around,” said Eddie Russell, 48, who was headed to work as a guard at SiriusXM. “I was afraid I was going to fall out the window.”
Joel Zaritsky said he was asleep and woke up as his train car started rolling over.
“Then I saw the gravel coming at me, and I heard people screaming,” he said.
The scene “looked like a toy train set that was mangled by some super-powerful force,” Gov. Cuomo later told CNN.
Gov. Cuomo said Monday that the high speed of the train probably caused the accident.
“I think it’s going to be speed-related,” he said. “It’s not about the turn. I think it’s going to be about the speed…” he said on NBC’s “Today” show.
Cuomo added that investigators are still trying to determine if the excessive speed was caused by “operator error” or a mechanical or other problem.
The governor called the scene of the tragedy horrific.
“It was actually worse than it looks,” he said.
Later, on Fox’s “Good Day New York,” he said it was hard to describe what he saw.
“This was breathtaking,” Cuomo recalled. “One minute everything is fine and the next minute we lost New Yorkers in a really tragic and violent way.
The first train car landed inches from Spuyten Duyvil Creek. NYPD divers searched the water to make sure no victims were thrown in.
The train, pushed by a diesel locomotive from behind, should have been going 70 mph before it slowed to 30 mph to round the curve, officials said.
Passengers told probers that the train seemed to be going much faster than usual.
“I have no idea why. I take this train every morning, and they always slow on this curve,” passenger Frank Tatulli told WABC-TV.
A person is evacuated from the scene of the derailment of a Metro-North passenger train in The Bronx.Photo: AP
Investigators recovered the train’s “black box,” which should reveal how fast it was going when it crashed, said officials with the National Transportation Safety Board, which is leading the probe.
There were 120 passengers aboard — making it about half full — along with four crew.
At least 11 people were critically hurt, including a man in his early 40s who suffered a spinal-cord injury and may be paralyzed, authorities said. A 14-year-old boy also was critical.
Another six people were hospitalized in serious condition.
Firefighters at the scene where a train derailed in The Bronx Sunday morning.Photo: Theodore Parisienne
The train’s conductor was among those injured, as were three city cops. The most seriously hurt officer, Elsie Rodriguez, was on her way to work at her domestic-violence post at the 40th Precinct station in The Bronx, said sources, who added that she broke her collarbone.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly visited Rodriguez at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx. Mayor Bloomberg — who had been MIA for most of the day, with staffers refusing to say where he was — also dropped in to see Rodriguez on Sunday evening.
“We chitchatted about her job and how I was going to be unemployed, and she thought that was funny,” Bloomberg said.
Asked about why he hadn’t been at the accident scene, the mayor responded, “What can I do? I’m not a professional firefighter or a police officer. There’s nothing I can do! What I can do is make sure the right people from New York . . . are there and have all the resources that they want.”
Two other cops were treated at Montefiore Medical Center, also in The Bronx. They were identified as Richie Hernandez of the NYPD’s Special Victims Unit and Gabriel Rodriguez of the 42nd Precinct. Rodriguez, who was on his way to work, was treated for a leg injury and released, sources said.
An NYPD school-safety officer also was on board, along with a Police Department recruit, but neither was hurt, sources said.
NTSB member Earl Weener said six teams of investigators would be probing everything from the train’s speed and instruments to its maintenance and personnel records and the condition of the tracks.
“Our mission is to understand not just what happened but why it happened,” he said.
Cuomo insisted that the train route’s curve had nothing to do with anything.
“Trains take the curve every day 365 days a year, so it’s not the fact that there’s a curve here,’’ he said. “There has to be another factor.’’
The accident was the second involving a Metro-North train in six months.
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
The Pronk Pops Show 184, December 19, 2013, Segment 1: Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos
Posted on December 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Media, Monetary Policy, Networking, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Resources, Social Science, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: 19, 19 December 2013, Agency Securities, Ben Bernanke, Booms, Busts, Central Bank, Commentary, Current Events, December 2013, Economic Recovery, Economics, Exist Strategy, Fiscal Drage, Government Interventionism. Bubbles, Government Regulation, investments, Keynesianism, Monetary Policy, Money, Money Creation, Opinions, Peter Schiff, Podcasts, Politics, Printing Money, Quantita, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Real Gross National Product, Talk Radio, The Federal Reserve System, The Great Recession, The Pronk Pops Show 184, Treasury Securities, Unemployment Rate, Welfare State |
Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year
Pronk Pops Show 185: January 2, 2014
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013
Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013
Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Segment 1: Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos
Bernanke on Fed taper in 90 seconds
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Final Speech
Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke
FED Downgrades Economic Outlook & Says It Will Not Change Policy – Stuart Varney
US Federal Reserve to pull back on stimulus program in economic vote of confidence
Assessing the Ben Bernanke Legacy
Background Articles and Videos
Max Keiser Discusses QE & Rigged Global Markets
Peter Schiff Was Right – ‘Taper’ Edition (Dec 18, 2013 Update)
Peter Schiff We’re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming
Peter Schiff Money Causes Economic Crises – Peter Schiff Economic Crisis – Peter Schiff Money
Related Posts On Pronk Pops
The Pronk Pops Show 184, December 19, 2013, Segment 0: God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )