Well, for the most part they are. Most of the other "money" is in the form of loans, pledged from other countries.
So it comes down to the US taxpayer paying to build a school in Iraq instead of in the US.
I know the ORIGINAL plan was to have the Iraqi oil sales pay for the rebuilding, but that hasn't materialized yet.
Instead, we have another government program for taking money from the taxpayer. This looks like an economic boost, but we're actually going into debt to do this (massive deficit).
The goal will be for EVERY Iraqi to know the facts of EVERY democracy's progression to Democracy.
This cannot be done without the support of the common person. But the common person hasn't been getting the education needed to prepare them for a Democracy.
They need to know how England and France and Germany and the US and every other Democracy handled the problems they faced.
Saddam was a threat to the people of Iraq. Not to the people of the US.
Bush's invasion has killed more Iraqis in 6 months than Saddam has killed in the past 5 years.
And we're still seeing children killed in Afghanistan.
Bush's invasion of Afghanistan has resulted in the wholesale production of opium there, again. That opium is sold and the terrorist organizations are getting a cut of the sales.
Because Bush couldn't think of any other way to handle these situations, the terrorists now have MORE MONEY than before and MORE RECRUITS than before.
He didn't throw out the inspects. The US pulled them out and Saddam wouldn't let them back in.
Saddam did comply with the latest round of inspections. And Bush still had to invade Iraq. Despite the UN inspectors saying that they had not found any evidence.
While I keep asking you WHY you think that it affected unemployment.
And you response it that I can be dismissed as a troll because I ask that question.
*drumroll*
Yes, another fallacy. That one is "Begging the Question"
Defined as: "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
The simple fact is that there are 3 MILLION FEWER JOBS now than when Clinton was in charge.
Here, I'll give you a couple more facts that you won't be able to handle.
The US counts people who are drawing unemployment benefits. Not all unemployed people. That's why I keep hammering on the FACT that there are MORE PEOPLE without a job today than there were when Clinton was in charge.
That is because the US can lose jobs without the unemployment rate going up, if those jobs lost are equal to or less than the number of people who will lose their unemployment benefits that month.
Sweden counts all people old enough to work but below retirement who are capable of work and are looking for a job.
That is what is meant by "registered unemployed".
"Those in the government training programs are exactly equivalent to Americans receiving workfare benefits, and would be counted as unemployed in the US."
Not correct. If that were so, you'd see a huge jump in "registered unemployed" at the end of those training programs.
That was addressed in the article. "During 2000, there was heavy demand for labor. For example, it has become more common for those completing their studies to get a job immediately, without any intervening period of unemployment."
"Okay, at this point, I think we can all agree that someone who thinks Bush was president in 2000, and that the attacks of 9/11 ``had an impact on the economy'' but ``didn't affect unemployment'' isn't worth taking seriously (and may be a troll)."
You can't answer because your "talking points" didn't give the information.
"As for why 2000 is more instructive, look elsewhere in this thread -- the recession which this nation is only now recovering from began in May of 2000."
But the issue was (and I'll quote my previous post):
More people are out of work than in 1999. FACT
There are fewer jobs than in 1999. FACT
You can skip the strawmen. They're easy to recognize.
You can use 2000 if you don't like 1999. It doesn't matter to me.
You can cry about how the report I used wasn't nice to Bush. It doesn't matter to me.
You can cry about why I should use 2000 instead of 1999. It doesn't matter to me.
You can claim that there is a huge PERCENTAGE increase in the number of jobs the last 2 quarters. It doesn't matter to me.
FACT - More people are out of work now, than were out of work before Bush took over.
FACT - There are fewer jobs now than there were before Bush took over.
Try to avoid those facts all you want. They're still facts.
You claim: "total unemployment in Sweden was 7.9% in 2000, and 8.9% in 1999 -- and you have just been telling us that US rate of 5.9% is `unbearably high'"
Yet the link you posted shows: "In November 2000, registered unemployment was 170,000 people, or 3.9 percent of the labor force."
3.9% 170,000 people.
In the US 3,000,000 jobs lost because of Bush.
"In contrast, in 1990, the bottom twenty percent of American society had, earned, and spent as much (adjusted for inflation) as the middle twenty percent had in 1950."
Do you have substantiation for that? I doubt it because that "bottom twenty percent" you claim in 1990 would have included those living below the poverty level, the homeless, etc. That would severely alter any averages taken.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for the most part they are. Most of the other "money" is in the form of loans, pledged from other countries.
So it comes down to the US taxpayer paying to build a school in Iraq instead of in the US.
I know the ORIGINAL plan was to have the Iraqi oil sales pay for the rebuilding, but that hasn't materialized yet.
Instead, we have another government program for taking money from the taxpayer. This looks like an economic boost, but we're actually going into debt to do this (massive deficit).
I like that idea. Thanks.
1 or 2 deaths per day.
That's because most of the attacks use remotely detonated explosives so the US forces cannot shoot back.
That's why Bush doesn't want anyone seeing how many US troops are crippled.
We launch a MASSIVE education effort.
The goal will be for EVERY Iraqi to know the facts of EVERY democracy's progression to Democracy.
This cannot be done without the support of the common person. But the common person hasn't been getting the education needed to prepare them for a Democracy.
They need to know how England and France and Germany and the US and every other Democracy handled the problems they faced.
Spend a million dollars on a school in Iraq.
Spend a million dollars on a school in the US.
No, it is not the same.
So, because China has economic power, we have to treat them differently than Iraq?
Why didn't we try trading with Iraq then? Why not treat Iraq like China if our aim was "turning that country around"?
No one is saying that capturing Saddam is not a "good thing".
It is the cost that is being discussed.
How many Iraqi lives were lost during our invasion?
How many US lives were lost during our invasion?
How many BILLIONS of dollars will be spent?
Meanwhile, we would have saved so much if we had just worked with the UN inspectors on this matter.
If it is the number of deaths, then the US should have gone into Africa to stop the killings that WERE HAPPENING.
The huge death toll in Iraq is history. That happened in the past.
You cannot convince them that their fantasies are not real. They KNOW that they're real.
All the little "coincidences" and such are just the PROOF they need.
The war was justified because Saddam had or was actively developing "WMD's" that could / would be used against the US.
Now that it looks like there weren't any and that there weren't even any programs to get any, those nutcases have to switch.
Even Bush has, now, stated that there is no link between Saddam and Osama.
But then he goes and claims that fighting in Iraq will stop the "terrorists".
Now it is all about "liberating" the Iraqis at any cost.
I'm with you, impeachment.
The idea is correct, but our execution of it is flawed.
Take Afghanistan for example. We had a great chance to turn that into a democracy, but we failed.
Now, the poppy production in Afghanistan will be used to finance terrorist attacks against pro-US organizations in Iraq.
All the while, there are religious sects that have an easy time framing this as a crusade against Islam.
There were lots of parties in Afghanistan, too. But parties don't solve problems.
Saddam was a threat to the people of Iraq. Not to the people of the US.
Bush's invasion has killed more Iraqis in 6 months than Saddam has killed in the past 5 years.
And we're still seeing children killed in Afghanistan.
Bush's invasion of Afghanistan has resulted in the wholesale production of opium there, again. That opium is sold and the terrorist organizations are getting a cut of the sales.
Because Bush couldn't think of any other way to handle these situations, the terrorists now have MORE MONEY than before and MORE RECRUITS than before.
We're dumping BILLIONS of dollars into rebuilding Iraq when we could really use that money back in the USofA.
He didn't throw out the inspects. The US pulled them out and Saddam wouldn't let them back in.
Saddam did comply with the latest round of inspections. And Bush still had to invade Iraq. Despite the UN inspectors saying that they had not found any evidence.
All that has to be done is for you to be declared a "terrorist" and then you can put in a military jail without access to a lawyer.
The government doesn't even need to come up with any evidence.
No US citizen's life was in danger from Iraq's government.
Bush had to keep pushing the lies about Saddam having "WMD's" so people over here would feel threatened.
No "WMD's" have been found.
There was no threat.
Therefore, the US government did not do everything it could to protect the lives of US citizens. US troops have died.
Sure, capturing Saddam will boost morale.
But that won't last long if the daily attacks keep happening.
The longer we're over there, the more attacks our troops will be subject to. That means their morale will drop again.
The problem is that we did not have a post-war plan.
If we stay, our troops are killed.
If we leave, Iraq becomes a theocracy like Iran.
YES!
That's THREE POSTS IN A ROW where you have done NOTHING but repeat your previous claim.
No substantiation!
NOTHING!
You've hit BOTH "Begging the Question" and "Argumentum ad Hominem" ALL THREE TIMES!
Because I was incorrect on a different point does NOT mean that I am incorrect on this point.
I AM VICTORIOUS!!!!!
I'm sure this will come up again and I will waste no time in linking that future discussion to this this one.
While I keep asking you WHY you think that it affected unemployment.
And you response it that I can be dismissed as a troll because I ask that question.
*drumroll*
Yes, another fallacy. That one is "Begging the Question"
Defined as: "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
The simple fact is that there are 3 MILLION FEWER JOBS now than when Clinton was in charge.
How did killing 3,000+ people result in 3 MILLION FEWER JOBS?
I would think that it would mean that 3,000+ jobs had just opened up.
I take it that you really don't have an answer for that and that you'll continue to attempt strawmen and ad Hominem.
Here, I'll give you a couple more facts that you won't be able to handle.
The US counts people who are drawing unemployment benefits. Not all unemployed people. That's why I keep hammering on the FACT that there are MORE PEOPLE without a job today than there were when Clinton was in charge.
That is because the US can lose jobs without the unemployment rate going up, if those jobs lost are equal to or less than the number of people who will lose their unemployment benefits that month.
Sweden counts all people old enough to work but below retirement who are capable of work and are looking for a job.
That is what is meant by "registered unemployed".
"Those in the government training programs are exactly equivalent to Americans receiving workfare benefits, and would be counted as unemployed in the US."
Not correct. If that were so, you'd see a huge jump in "registered unemployed" at the end of those training programs.
That was addressed in the article.
"During 2000, there was heavy demand for labor. For example, it has become more common for those completing their studies to get a job immediately, without any intervening period of unemployment."
So far you have ONE item I was incorrect on.
:)
:D
You pair that with an item that you REFUSE to substantiate.
With those two items, you claim I am "discredited".
You just don't like being called to substantiate your position because you don't have anything but "talking points".
Because you cannot deal with the facts, you claim I'm a troll. Whatever. :)
:D
Again, when Clinton left office, there were more jobs than there are now.
Killing 3,000+ people should reduce the number of people without jobs because 3,000+ jobs just opened up.
Stick to your mantra if it makes you feel better.
I read it. Sweden breaks down the group into "unemployed" (not, as you claim "unemployable") and those in the governmental training programs.
And you can keep repeating yourself all you want. That won't make it right.
"Okay, at this point, I think we can all agree that someone who thinks Bush was president in 2000, and that the attacks of 9/11 ``had an impact on the economy'' but ``didn't affect unemployment'' isn't worth taking seriously (and may be a troll)."
You can't answer because your "talking points" didn't give the information.
You keep trying to avoid the facts.
Again, you're attempting to avoid the issue.
"As for why 2000 is more instructive, look elsewhere in this thread -- the recession which this nation is only now recovering from began in May of 2000."
But the issue was (and I'll quote my previous post):
More people are out of work than in 1999. FACT
There are fewer jobs than in 1999. FACT
You can skip the strawmen. They're easy to recognize.
You can use 2000 if you don't like 1999. It doesn't matter to me.
You can cry about how the report I used wasn't nice to Bush. It doesn't matter to me.
You can cry about why I should use 2000 instead of 1999. It doesn't matter to me.
You can claim that there is a huge PERCENTAGE increase in the number of jobs the last 2 quarters. It doesn't matter to me.
FACT - More people are out of work now, than were out of work before Bush took over.
FACT - There are fewer jobs now than there were before Bush took over.
Try to avoid those facts all you want. They're still facts.
You claim:
"total unemployment in Sweden was 7.9% in 2000, and 8.9% in 1999 -- and you have just been telling us that US rate of 5.9% is `unbearably high'"
Yet the link you posted shows:
"In November 2000, registered unemployment was 170,000 people, or 3.9 percent of the labor force."
3.9%
170,000 people.
In the US
3,000,000 jobs lost because of Bush.
"In contrast, in 1990, the bottom twenty percent of American society had, earned, and spent as much (adjusted for inflation) as the middle twenty percent had in 1950."
Do you have substantiation for that? I doubt it because that "bottom twenty percent" you claim in 1990 would have included those living below the poverty level, the homeless, etc. That would severely alter any averages taken.
When continually bombarded by verifiable facts, you retreat to rhetoric.