The advance estimate for seasonally adjusted initial jobless claims was 203,000 for the week ending November 30, easily beating the forecasts. That’s a decline of 10,000 from the previous week’s unrevised level.
The 4-week moving average was 217,750, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 219,750.
Forecasts ranged from a low of 215,000 to a high of 226,000. The consensus forecast was 218,000. No state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending November 16.
Lagging Jobless Claims Data
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate ticked up slightly to a still low 1.2% for the week ending November 23. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending November 23 was 1,693,000 and the 4-week moving average was 1,681,000.
State Jobless Claims Data
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending November 16 were in Alaska (2.8), Puerto Rico (2.1), New Jersey (2.0), California (1.7), West Virginia (1.7), Connecticut (1.6), Pennsylvania (1.6), Montana (1.5), Washington (1.5), Illinois (1.4), Massachusetts (1.4), and the Virgin Islands (1.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending November 23 were in California (+8,384), Pennsylvania (+5,065), New York (+2,993), Georgia (+1,846), and Texas (+1,804), while the largest decreases were in Illinois (-2,723), Ohio (-871), Iowa (-785), Oklahoma (-689), and Louisiana (-199).
From left to right: Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan, and University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt testify for Democrats as “legal experts” before the House Judiciary Committee on December 4, 2019.
The liberal law professors Democrats called to testify as “legal experts” before the House Judiciary Committee have been pushing for and cashing in on impeachment since 2017. The counsel for House Judiciary Committee Democrats first tweeted about impeaching President Donald J. Trump more than a month before he was sworn into office.
Indeed, they have all used impeachment for personal gain, be it political, professional or financial.
On Wednesday, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, held an impeachment hearing with 3 Democratic witnesses and 1 Republican witness. All are liberals.
Noah Feldman
Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman led the Judiciary Committee to believe he was “an impeachment skeptic” until recently. That was how it was framed in a question by Norm Elsen, the counsel for House Judiciary Committee Democrats.
However, Mr. Feldman has been pushing for impeachment at least as early as March 7, 2017. In an opinion piece at Bloomberg just 46 days into the presidency of Donald J. Trump, he argued the president’s tweets regarding a wiretap put him at “risk of impeachment.”
The president was lambasted for accusing the Obama Administration of “wiretapping” Trump Tower, which turned out to be fundamentally true.
On April 18, 2017, he appeared on ‘Trumpcast‘ — a “resistance” podcast on the very liberal website Slate — to discuss “the three most pressing cases for impeaching President Trump.”
He argued the president’s criticism of the media and “corruption of the electoral process” was an impeachable offense. The latter was a play on the disproven and debunked conspiracy theory alleging President Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
On April 25, 2017, he wrote another column adding an ad for Mar-a-Lago to the “impeachment file.”
The argument is predicated on violations of the Emoluments Clause, an argument accepted only among the fringe left.
On May 16, 2017, Mr. Feldman suggested in a tweet sharing a story that President Trump committed an impeachable offense outlined in the memos leaked by fired former FBI director James Comey.
Worth noting, the Justice Department (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) concluded James Comey violated guidelines and policy leaking the memos. The DOJ declined to prosecute despite the IG sharing the findings.
On May 4, 2018, Mr. Feldman wrote ‘Crooked Trump’ surrounding Michael Cohen, another angle to impeach the president that failed. Mr. Cohen lied under oath to the U.S. Congress multiple times.
Most recently in October 2019, Mr. Feldman wrote an opinion piece offering Democrats advice on how to impeach the president over Ukraine, the latest in a long list of stuff being thrown at a wall.
Pamela Karlan
Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan was floated as a potential nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court under Barack Obama because she was “stridently liberal” and named a potential pick for Hillary Clinton as an “unapologetic liberal”.
While she wasn’t tapped for the high court, she worked at the very liberal Civil Rights Division at DOJ under Mr. Obama.
Ms. Karlan has come under scrutiny for donating thousands of dollars to the president’s political opponents, including, $2,000 to Hillary Clinton — the 2016 Democratic nominee. She continues to fund the president’s rivals to this day, including a $1,000 donation to Senator Elizabeth Warren. D-Mass., now a top-tier candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination.
On May 17, 2017, she among other liberal activists — to include the third witness — were cited in a BBC article pushing for impeachment. As with Mr. Feldman, the core of the obstruction argument surrounded the Comey memos.
Michael Gerhardt
University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt also was available for comment to contribute to the same BBC report, in which he and Ms. Karlan cited obstruction to push impeachment.
Before the Ukraine story broke and just before the investigation headed up by Robert Mueller failed to establish connections between the Trump Campaign and Russia, he was cited by The New York Times in an article to pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to take up impeachment.
In the summer of 2018, he was cashing in on the impeachment fervor, releasing a book titled ‘Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know’. It gained little traction. The $57 hardcover version boasts just 6 reviews on Amazon and the tweet below — meant to promote the book — had just 6 “Likes” at the published time for this article.
For those in our area who are interested, I will be talking about my new book, "Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know," on July 14 at McIntyre's Bookstore. https://t.co/1uu7kDzt9xhttps://t.co/1uu7kDzt9x
— Michael Gerhardt (@MichaelGerhard8) July 5, 2018
Jonathan Turley
George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is also a liberal Democrat, was the only witness for the Republicans. He attacked the impeachment inquiry by quoting ‘A Man For All Seasons’.
Norm Elsen
Norm Elsen, the counselor for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, all but ignored Mr. Turley in questioning. He asked the most respected legal scholar on the witness list just one question and cut him off to prevent him from providing context to his answer.
Mr. Elsen first tweeted about impeachment on December 11, 2016. That’s more than a month before President Trump even took the Oath of Office. He continued to push impeachment and the Russia Collusion Hoax throughout 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Love it! purchasing an inauguration package entitles you to a discounted stay in event if future impeachment proceedings ;-). https://t.co/V2uz7S43rn
Big Media Propped Up Kalama Harris’ Candidacy, Which Now Ends With a Fizzle
Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has told aides that she will end her campaign for president on Tuesday. The freshman senator from the nation’s largest blue state, who failed to regain traction in the polls and was facing a dire financial situation, confirmed the announcement on Twitter.
To my supporters, it is with deep regret—but also with deep gratitude—that I am suspending my campaign today.
But I want to be clear with you: I will keep fighting every day for what this campaign has been about. Justice for the People. All the people.https://t.co/92Hk7DHHbR
Senator Harris was immediately propped up by big media following her announcement in Oakland before 20,000 people in January. But her campaign failed to maintain a coherent message and provide a basic justification.
Richard Baris, the Director of the PPD Election Projection Model, said she was the least-liked top-tier candidate and viewed by voters as inauthentic.
“This isn’t deep. She was seen by voters as a faker in the era of authenticity,” he said. “Her own father condemned her for pandering ‘in the pursuit of identity politics.'”
Senator Harris made headlines in February when she said during a radio interview that of course she smoked marijuana when she was younger.
“Half my family’s from Jamaica. Are you kidding me?” she replied.
Donald J. Harris, her father, blasted his daughter in an unsolicited statement sent to Kingston-based Jamaica Global Online.
My dear departed grandmothers (whose extraordinary legacy I described in a recent essay on this website), as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics.
Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.
Donald J. Harris statement in Jamaica Global Online
“But above all, she had no justification for running,” Mr. Baris added. “Every successful modern presidential campaign has been able to convey why the candidate was the right person for that moment.”
“No one knows why Kamala Harris was running for president.”
Early polling conducted by the campaign suggested “truth” was the word to use to tell her story. In response, she titled her 2019 memoir “The Truths We Hold” and initially used “Let’s speak truth” in her early stump speeches.
That evolved in to a series of muddled messages from “Speak Truth” to a knock off of the “3AM Phone Call” ad used by Hillary Clinton in 2008 to “Justice for Trump.”
It was not an effective use of the $25.1 million the campaign raised in the first and second quarters for the year. In total, Kamala Harris for the People raised $36.9 million. In Q3, she raised only $11.8 million and the burn rate for the campaign was an unsustainable 71%.
The campaign has not been able to afford polling or TV advertising since September.
Then, in early November, the campaign announced widespread layoffs and a renewed focus on Iowa. Only a few days later at a staff meeting in Baltimore, senior aides cornered campaign manager, Juan Rodriguez. They demanded answers to basic questions such as the direction of the campaign.
He was unable to provide those answers.
Only a few days later after that, Kelly Mehlenbacher, the state operations director, resigned in a blistering letter. Mehlenbacher blasted Mr. Rodriguez and Maya Harris (sister) for laying off staffers who had just relocated without notice.
“This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly,” Ms. Mehlenbacher wrote. “This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly.”
Cracks in the wall painted with the flags for the United States of America (USA), the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation. (Photo: AdobeStock)
In 2016, the American people elected Donald J. Trump, a businessman and political outsider who campaigned on trade equilibrium. He is the first president in modern history to keep his promise to confront China over the unfair economic advantages that are and have been bankrolling their inevitable militaristic rise.
But for three years, the nation’s political discourse has been paralyzed by a manufactured fear fueled by a lie, one built on false assumptions and pushed by a complacent media.
The D.C. foreign policy and security establishments cast Russia as the top threat to the United States, and Russian President Vladimir Putin their default Boogeyman. Anyone who challenges that “conventional wisdom” is accused of being a Russian asset, or “Puppet of Putin.”
Due to that paralysis, U.S. policy-makers have failed to address the real and rising threat. They’ve failed to support the president’s attempt to confront it before it’s too late.
By all accepted measures used to gauge the strength of a Great Power, China is a far greater threat to the United States than Russia.
Economic Power
There’s a good reason we will discuss economic power first and foremost. Economic power and wealth are necessary for a nation to build military power. Great Powers aim to maximize wealth because economic strength is the foundation of military strength.
A nation’s wealth is largely determined by its gross domestic product (GDP).
According to the World Bank, the gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States in 2018 was $20,494,100,000,000. China is the only other nation with a comparable GDP at $13,608,151,864,638. The GDP for Russia totaled just $1,657,553,765,581.
For context, GDP for the entire Russian Federation is just a little more than Spain ($1.311 trillion) and less than Italy ($1.935 trillion).
But economic power can reveal itself in more than just a nation’s GDP. Examples would include influence over the domestic industry of rival nations, many of which in turn influence culture and norms.
Such power was on full display only a few weeks ago when prominent voices and organizations in entertainment and sports refused to condemn violence used against the protestors in Hong Kong.
Military Power
Another measure used to gauge the strength of a Great Power is the most obvious — military power. The numbers below are a bit misleading, and we’ll discuss why.
Country
Active
Reserve
Para
Total
Per 1000 capita (Total)
Per 1000 capita (Active)
China (PRC)
2,035,000
510,000
660,000
3,205,000
2.3
1.5
United States
1,359,450
845,600
0
2,205,050
6.7
4.1
Russian Fed
900,000
2,000,000
554,000
3,454,000
24.3
6.3
Source: “The Military Balance” 2019 edition published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies
The United States of America relies on the aircraft carrier fleet to project military power within and beyond its region. Its ability to do so has caused a debate over whether “the stopping power of water” truly limits hegemonic power to regions in the modern era.
Putting aside the unproven development of the hypersonic “carrier killer,” China has now added the carrier to their level of military capacity. Russia maintains a single carrier, as well.
However, only one nation has the wealth to fund a large budget to support development, and maintain strategic and combat effectiveness.
China’s military budget is $177.6 billion, far less than the United States at $989.1 billion but also far more than the $70.0 military budget in Russia. The Russian Federation simply does not have the economic might to support their current military, and combat effectiveness remains very low.
The outdated Military Strength Index from 2015 considered six weighted elements: Active personnel (5%), tanks (10%), attack helicopters (15%), aircraft (20%), aircraft carriers (25%), submarines (25%).
Rank
Country
Score
Active Personnel (1000)
Tanks
Aircraft
Attack Helicopters
Aircraft Carriers
Submarines
1
United States
0.94
0.90
0.86
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
2
Russian Fed
0.80
0.81
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.52
0.86
3
China (PRC)
0.79
0.95
0.90
0.86
0.86
0.52
0.90
Source: Credit Suisse Military Strength Index
Since the index was released, China’s military capabilities have grown significantly. For the 70th anniversary of the Communist Party’s rise to power, the PRC paraded a stealth nuclear submarine, stealth drone and helicopter technology.
All of which were made possible only with technology stolen from the United States. Worth noting, the “experts” in the D.C. foreign policy and security establishments estimated those capabilities wouldn’t be achieved for another decade.
The new nuclear submarine is capable of firing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that packs 10 nuclear devices in one warhead — again, technology stolen from the United States.
Latent Power
Latent power is determined by a state’s wealth and the size of its overall population. While we already discussed economic wealth, we’ve left population for last.
Country
Population Estimates
China (PRC)
1.386 billion (2017)
United States
327.2 million (2018)
Russian Fed
144.5 million (2017)
Source: Populations are sourced via World Bank
China boasts a population more than the U.S. and Russia, combined. That is the reason for the disparity between and apparent disadvantage for China’s per capita active rate.
After all, for every neck, there are two hands to choke it.
John Mearsheimer, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”
According to the United Nations, China’s one-child policy will result in a steadily shrinking population for generations. However, the population will fall from their slightly different estimate of 1.41 billion in 2017 to a still significant 1.36 billion in 2050.
Forecasts for the population of Russia are estimated as low as 119 million by 2050. For the same year, the U.S. population is projected to grow to 390 million.
But even if those revisions are accurate, it would do little to offset what could still be a 3- to 4-fold advantage enjoyed by China over the U.S. in latent power. That is an unheard-of level of latent power.
Further, increasing population estimates for the U.S. are largely fueled by immigration, not domestic fertility rates.
Veterans data from the U.S. Census Bureau suggests those fueling immigration have low enlistment rates juxtaposed to other races who would represent a smaller share of the overall population.
At 76.7%, white veterans represent a higher share than their total civilian population at 73.8%. Hispanic or Latino veterans represent just 7.2% of the veteran population, significantly less their share of the civilian population.
Black veterans, totaling 2,150,689 or 12.0%, closely reflect the overall share of total civilian population at 12.3%. But they are projected to largely remain stagnant as a percentage of future population estimates.
If demographic trends continue, it will further reduce the active personnel rate per capita for the U.S. Put plainly, the population increase will not necessarily translate into a larger military, and could make a draft more likely in the event of Great Power conflict.
If economic trends continue, China could also gain a decisive military advantage. There are some valid arguments that demographic contraction will damage China’s longterm economy, though they’re untested.
By all accepted measures used to gauge the strength of a Great Power — economic, military and latent power — China is a far greater national security threat to the United States than Russia.
The Trump Campaign is slamming and banning Bloomberg News for their decision not to investigate their boss Michael Bloomberg or his Democrat competitors. The news organization that bares the 2020 Democratic candidate’s name was widely criticized for announcing they would only take an adversarial posture with the president.
The Trump Campaign stated they “are accustomed to unfair reporting practices” even if most outlets “don’t announce their biases so publicly.”
“Since they have declared their bias openly, the Trump campaign will no longer credential representatives of Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events,” Brad Parscale, Trump 2020 campaign manager said in a statement. “We will determine whether to engage with individual reporters or answer inquiries from Bloomberg News on a case-by-case basis.”
“We will write about virtually all aspects of this presidential contest in much the same way as we have done so far,” John Micklethwait, Bloomberg Editorial and Research’s editor in chief, said in the memo, in which he refers to Mr. Bloomberg simply as “Mike.”
He noted they have already assigned a reporter to follow his campaign — ” (just as we did when Mike was in City Hall)” — and “will make clear that our owner is now a candidate.” But the memo also stated Bloomberg’s outlets will not do in-depth investigations of Mr. Bloomberg or any of his Democratic rivals.
This unusual policy of avoiding in-depth investigations of the Democratic field echoes the similarly unusual way that the outlet covered Mr. Bloomberg’s 12-year tenure in City Hall as well as its practices regarding rivals of Bloomberg L.P.
Joe Biden Plays Catchup in Iowa After Months of Dismissing Caucus-goers
Lagging in enthusiasm, fundraising and support in the polls, Joe Biden is kicking off a bus tour in Iowa for 8 days and plans to return in late December. The “No Malarky” tour represents a complete reversal of strategy for the former vice president and 2020 Democratic frontrunner.
With less than 10 weeks before the Iowa Caucuses on February 3, the campaign has only held 50 events statewide, far less than the other competitive candidates.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has held 93. The surging former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has held 82. Iowa caucus-goers on both sides of the aisle have a long and proud tradition of demanding personal attention, and recent polls have reflected which candidates have been courting them.
A recent Des Moines Register/CNN poll conducted from November 8 to November 13 showed Mr. Buttigieg far ahead with 25% support. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the former frontrunner in both Iowa and New Hampshire, lagged behind in second at 16%.
Mr. Biden was effectively in a statistical tie with Senator Sanders for third at 15%. However, more recent polling gauged Senator Sanders in a stronger poll position over Mr. Biden.
An Iowa State University poll conducted from November 15 to November 19 showed Mr. Buttigieg leading with 26%, with Senators Warren (19%) and Sanders (18%) battling for second. Mr. Biden was solidly in fourth place at only 12%.
For months, the Biden Campaign insisted he didn’t need to win either of the early states of Iowa or New Hampshire, arguing instead that his strength among minority voters will enable him to turn a corner in South Carolina and other diverse states on Super Tuesday.
In fact, the campaign was bracing supporters and donors for losses in both states only a few weeks ago. Fast-forward to the present, and the campaign is bombarding contributor email lists with desperate fundraising calls.
The 2020 rapid response team for the Trump Campaign has been having a field day taking screenshots of them and posting them to social media.
State activists who support Mr. Biden and party officials nationwide are frequently referencing the dynamic of 2004. That nomination cycle — the last in which Democratic hopefuls vied to challenge a Republican incumbent — the “moderate” Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., defeated the more progressive Vermont Governor Howard Dean in the Iowa Caucuses.
Mr. Dean surged late in much the same way as Mr. Buttigieg, but imploded at the most opportune time for the Kerry Campaign in a field that offered voters far fewer choices.
The reason for the shift is simple but two-fold.
First, unlike Republican nominations in modern electoral history, the winner of the Democratic Iowa Caucuses have gone on to secure the nomination. While Mr. Biden allegedly has the potential to appeal to working class voters, he certainly hasn’t been able to count on their support.
As of October 15, Mr. Biden raised just $15.7 million in the previous quarter and only $4.7 million are low dollar contributions. Most of his financial support comes from big donors who have already maxed out their contribution limits. His burn rate is currently at an unsustainable 76%.
For comparison, Senator Sanders raised $28 million, of which $15.1 million came from low dollar donations. The burn rate for the Sanders Campaign is 55%.
Senator Warren raised $24.7 million, of which $15 million came from low dollar donations. The burn rate for the Warren Campaign is 57%.
Mr. Buttigieg raised $19.2 million, of which $8.7 million came from low dollar donations. The burn rate for the Buttigieg Campaign mirrors the Sanders Campaign at 55%.
A loss in Iowa would be bad enough for those numbers, but a poor showing could be catastrophic for fundraising. That’s particularly true given Democratic voters in New Hampshire tend to favor hometown or neighboring candidates.
They have either Senators Warren or Sanders to choose from, and backed the latter over Hillary Clinton in 2016 by a wide margin.
Second, there are signs minority support for Mr. Biden is cracking and running only on Obama-era nostalgia. He hasn’t boasted levels comparable to Mrs. Clinton in 2016 for nearly six months. Mrs. Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, fended off a challenge from the more progressive Senator Sanders by winning more than 7 out of 10 nonwhite voters.
That was due largely to older African Americans voting at higher rates than younger African Americans. In total, nonwhites made up roughly 4 in 10 Democratic nomination voters in 2016, and Hispanic Democratic voters nearly handed a win in the Nevada Caucuses to Senator Sanders.
Less than two weeks ago, the most senior Latina staffer who had been serving as national coalitions director since Mr. Biden formally announced his presidential bid, quit the campaign. Vanessa Cárdenas was in charge of outreach to Latino, African-Americans and women’s groups.
She was frustrated over her lack of input on the campaign and with Mr. Biden’s rhetoric on immigration. That rift was exposed in South Carolina last Thursday, the very state the campaign had argued would turn it all around.
Mr. Biden clashed with Carlos Rojas, an illegal immigration activist with the group Movimiento Cosecha, who asked him to pledge that he would halt deportations.
When Mr. Biden refused, Mr. Rojas told him that he volunteered for the Obama-Biden Campaign in 2008, but had since become disenchanted because “over those 8 years, there were 3 million people that were deported and separated from their families.”
“You should vote for Trump,” Mr. Biden said cutting him off.
The First Thanksgiving 1621, oil on canvas by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (1899).
In the fall of 1621, the Pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians held an event most regard as the First Thanksgiving. In 2019, the nation celebrates its 399th Thanksgiving.
Here are some fun facts and stats to share with friends and family.
The Pilgrims, the early settlers of Plymouth Colony, held the feast over not one but three days. It was an English tradition to celebrate a bountiful harvest. While the credit goes to Plymouth, historians note harvest celebrations were common among European settlers in North America.
Ceremonies of British colonists in Virginia have been recorded as early as 1619. In 1949, the U.S. Census Bureau published “Historical Statistics of the United States” and, on page 25, they estimated how many colonists were there in 1620.
Historical Statistics of the United States. (Source; U.S. Census Bureau)
However, while the First Thanksgiving included 90 Wampanoag Indians, only 53 Pilgrims celebrated the harvest in the New World in 1621. They nearly starved to death.
The Pilgrims operated under a communal system when they first settled Plymouth. The initial charter dictated that they share in common property and farms and, as a result, each family was to receive an equal share of food, despite how much work they put in.
It was little more than a colonial era wealth redistribution scheme that went against their Protestant values. The result was widespread starvation and theft.
“It’s no exaggeration to say that capitalism was a life-saver for the Pilgrims,” economist Dan Mitchell wrote in a column on Thanksgiving for People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) in 2017. He included another video narrated by Larry Schweikart, which “uses the colonial experience to teach about the failures of mercantilism and collectivism.”
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.” With that proclamation, the United States of America became the first nation to establish a holiday based upon gratitude.
Americans were thankful for their faith, good fortune, as well as the political and economic systems that nurtured their way of life. They experienced untold hardship during the Civil War, and took the day to reflect on the things they had in their lives to be thankful for.
President Franklin Roosevelt officially declared that Thanksgiving should always be celebrated on the fourth Thursday of the month to encourage earlier holiday shopping.
Presidential recognitions continue to this very day, to include Donald J. Trump just proclaiming that “Thursday, November 28, 2019, as a National Day of Thanksgiving.” In many ways, he echoed President Lincoln.
President Donald J. Trump proclaims Thanksgiving 2019 as a National Day of Thanks. (Photo: White House)
“On Thanksgiving Day, we remember with reverence and gratitude the bountiful blessings afforded to us by our Creator, and we recommit to sharing in a spirit of thanksgiving and generosity with our friends, neighbors, and families,” the president said.
According to the Census Bureau, there are several locations in the U.S. that celebrate the early colonists’ arrival in the New World through their namesake.
Three are named after the Mayflower, the English ship that brought the first Pilgrims to the New World.
Mayflower Census County Division (CCD), Pike County, Ky., (3,191)
Mayflower, city, Ark., (2,218)
Mayflower Village CDP, Calif., (5,828)
Two counties have Plymouth in their names as in Plymouth Rock, the landing site of the first Pilgrims:
The new annual survey from Rasmussen Reports finds 44% of American Adults still rank Thanksgiving as one of our nation’s most important holidays. While that’s down from a high of 49% last year, it’s largely unchanged since 2006.
Only 8% view it as one of the least important and 43% rate it somewhere in between. However, 83% of American Adults say they have a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. Just 8% say they do not and 9% are undecided.
Wages and Salaries Offset By Personal Interest Income, Farm Proprietors’ Income
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported personal income rose $3.3 billion (less than 0.1%) in October after gains in August and September were revised higher.
Wages and salaries (workers) rose by $7.2 billion (at an annual rate) and were partially offset by decreases in personal interest income (wealthy).
Disposable personal income (DPI) fell $12.6 billion (-0.1%) heading into the holiday season and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) rose $39.7 billion (0.3%), hitting the consensus forecast.
Personal outlays rose $43.1 billion in October.
Personal saving was $1.29 trillion in October. The personal saving rate — defined as personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 7.8%.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported the advance estimate for durable goods orders unexpectedly gained in October, easily beating the consensus forecast. New orders for manufactured durable goods rose by $1.5 billion or 0.6 percent to $248.7 billion.
While forecasts ranged from a low of -1.8% to a high of 0.7%, the consensus forecast was -0.7%.
New orders for durable goods have been up four of the last five months, though the gain in October follows a 1.4% decline in September.
Excluding transportation, new orders for durable goods rose 0.6%. Forecasts for this measure ranged from a low of -0.2% to a high of 0.3%. The consensus forecast was just 0.1%.
Excluding defense, new orders gained 0.1%. Fabricated metal products, which have been up two of the last three months, fueled the increase gaining $0.6 billion or 1.8% to $34.1 billion.
Core capital goods gained 1.2%, easily beating the consensus. Forecasts for the core ranged from a low of -0.5% to a high of 0.3%. The consensus was 0.1%.
Insured Unemployment Rate Just 1.1%, Number Lowest Since August 4, 1973
The advance for initial jobless claims fell 15,000 to a seasonally adjusted 213,000 for the week ending November 23 and insured unemployment fell matched the series low. The 4-week moving average declined by 1,500 to 219,750.
Forecasts for the headline weekly jobless claims ranged from a low of 215,000 to a high of 221,000. The consensus forecast was 218,000.
Lagging data made history.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate fell to 1.1% for the week ending November 16, the lowest ever on record. It first fell to 1.2% for the week ending May 5, 2018, and to 1.1% for the week ending September 14, 2019. It held for one more week before inching back to 1.2%.
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending November 16 fell by 57,000 to 1,640,000, the lowest level since August 4, 1973 when it was 1,633,000. The 4-week moving average was 1,680,500, a decrease of 13,000.
The Labor Department said no state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending November 9.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending November 9 were in Alaska (2.5), Puerto Rico (2.1), New Jersey (2.0), California (1.6), Connecticut (1.6), West Virginia (1.6), Pennsylvania (1.5), Washington (1.5), Illinois (1.4), and Montana (1.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending November 16 were in Illinois (+2,974), Iowa (+1,652), Minnesota (+1,444), Michigan (+1,313), and Oklahoma (+960), while the largest decreases were in California (-5,067), New Jersey (-3,769), Pennsylvania (-2,104), Texas (-2,058), and Georgia (-1,483).
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
