March Unemployment Rate: 4.7%
- Thread starter STING2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
najeena said:
The Reality currently in Iraq that few people on either the left or right see, is that US casualties have fallen for 5 consecutive months now. The longest period of decline before was only 2 months. The insurgency in Iraq has not grown at all since April 2004 when the United States suffered its worse casualties.
The new Iraqi military will effectively control 75% of Iraq, conducting all the patrols and responding to any security problems by the end of the summer of 2006. By the end of 2006, the Iraqi military will finally be at its planned size.
A US military Captain who has spent the majority of the past three years in Iraq says the difference between then and now is like night and day. When the Saddam statues came down in Baghdad, the US military was handling ALL security public functions. Childern were not going to school. Now the schools are open and are running better than they did before the war and it is the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police force that is most often seen on the streets of many cities.
While formation of a new government has stalled, if the Iraqi's can get over this last hurdle, the situation will improve even more. Civil War will not benefit anyone except Al Quada. Those who think the current situation is a Civil War need to study up on the Bosnian and Rawandan Civil Wars.
As long as US casaulties continue to drop, the Iraqi government is finally able to break the current deadlock, Americans will become less and less concerned with the situation there. If the United States over the next two years is able withdraw a significant number of troops because the improving situation and the Iraqi government gets over its current deadlock, Bush's poll numbers will indeed rise and the poor poll numbers will be forgotten.
The United States has enough combat brigades outside of Iraq to successfuly invade Iran and overthrow the regime. It also has the money to pay for it as well. Current defense spending as well as the cost of the work in Iraq is only 4.5% of USA GDP. The Reagan administration spent more on national defense in peacetime at 6% of GDP in the 1980s, than the current Bush administration is spending on defense, Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to know what an expensive war is, I refer you to World War II, where USA national debt after four years went from a 20% of GDP to 150% of GDP.
The real question with Iran is military action warrented in this particular situation? Would the benefits of removing the regime in Iran justify the cost of doing so? As for the Airstrikes that are being contemplated, they would be very cheap comparitively, but would likely only push the problem down the road a few years at best, unless the United States continually bombed as facilities were being rebuilt.
Bush will be in office another three years, and most Senators are not up for election in November 2006. That leaves just the House Of Representives for the mid-term election as the only place where a significant change could occur. But it is a mid-term election which primarily appeals to hardcore voters and not the general public. The Republicans do a much better job at getting their base out which is why they may remain in control of the House Of Representives even with current poll numbers.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
oh, good. that settles it. and this is totally relevant to what i was talking about.
case closed!
don't worry, y'all; be happy!
Irvine511 said:
You should, instead, chuckle at the subtext:
1 Norway 0.963
2 Iceland 0.956
3 Australia 0.955
4 Luxembourg 0.949
5 Canada 0.949
6 Sweden 0.949
7 Switzerland 0.947
8 Ireland 0.946
9 Belgium 0.945
Most of these nations are perceived bastions of liberalism. And Iceland, for instance, has the highest tax burden of all the nations in the world: an average of 45%.
And you know how much America makes fun of Canada. Yet, they're five places ahead of us.
Somehow, I don't think lavishing the top 1% with more tax cuts is ever going to put us closer to #1.
Melon
anitram said:
I think that there is a small amount of racism and sexism in both parties, but the Republicans tend to have more of this than the Democrats. In any event, the vast majority of people in both parties are not sexist or racist.
melon said:
I don't think tax cuts for the top 1% in the United States is a good idea either, but tax cuts for the middle class are definitely necessary and effective.
Also take a look at these countries that rank below the United States:
11 Japan 0.943
12 Netherlands 0.943
13 Finland 0.941
14 Denmark 0.941
15 United Kingdom 0.939
16 France 0.938
17 Austria 0.936
18 Italy 0.934
19 New Zealand 0.933
20 Germany 0.930
21 Spain 0.928
These countries could also be considered as bastions of liberalism at least in the same sense that countries 1-9 are, but they rank behind the United States in standard of living.
As far Canada lets not forget that nearly half of their economy is dependent upon exports to the United States.
As for Iceland, its not to difficult to be #2 when you only have 299,388 people and NO armed forces at all.
Irvine511 said:
oh, good. that settles it. and this is totally relevant to what i was talking about.
case closed!
don't worry, y'all; be happy!
You said that you did not think that unemployment numbers were comprehensive enough to offer a total assessment on US economic health. Well, the United Nations would definitely agree which is why they consider a large number of factors in compiling the annual Human Development Index.
AliEnvy
Refugee
STING2 said:
You dodged my question again earlier but at least you've come around to your same pointless comparison to those HDI countries below the US. So I'll come back to it...
Since military spending in the US accounts for the lionshare of the budget and univeral healthcare does the same in countries 1-9, are you still prepared to write off the comparison to the "hundreds" of other factors measuring HDI?
Here's one while we're analysing indices...Human Poverty Index last reported in 2003. Top rank goes to least poverty, USA ranks 17...SEVENTEEN. And guess which single measure keeps them from falling far lower...low long term unemplyment.
So while you started this thread to puff up low unemployment, you're right about one thing, the working poor will continue to ensure that the nation with the highest income will also have a comparably mediocre standard of living and abysmal poverty index as compared to its peer group in the developed world.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
WildHoneyAlways said:
No. There will always be some who, based on earning power alone, will never be able to purchase a home.
There are plenty of people who can choose between the two, and jump on the "golden treadmill" based on the conventional wisdom that a mortgage is always better than rent.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
Sorry. Dead wrong. I've rented for over five years.
And my comments regarding the Orange County housing market (as I was replying to BAW, an Orange Country resident) are quite accurate.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
you've still missed the point.
but i've found it's rather pointless arguing in this thread, since all that happens is a blanket of out-of-context numbers and assertions (you know, like the whole "only 6 provinces in Iraq are in the mist of a civil war" ignoring the fact that those 6 provinces include the largest city and have well over 35% of the nation's entire population, and when this is brought up, the answer is "only 6 provinces in Iraq are in the midst of a civil war" ... but that's a whole other story, but a perfect example of the futility of attempting discussion in threads like these).
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
By corollary, does that mean threads bemoaning a rise in unemployment rates are pointless as well?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
no.
it has nothing to do with the subject, and everything to do with the manner in which the subject is discussed, or more appropriately, not discussed.
a quality thread can happen on any subject. the quality arises from the content of the posts.
AliEnvy said:
The US Defense Budget is a fraction of the annual government budget at around 20%. As a percentage of GDP, the defense budget alone is less than 4%. US military spending does not account for the lionshare of the US Budget!
Mediocre standard of living? The United States ranks at #10 when it comes to standard of living, that is NOT Mediocre.
Sure, you might find a statistic here and there, that alone might support your misconcieved notion of American standard of living, but the goal of the Human Development report is to measure overall standard of living for the average person living in that country. While the United States may have a slightly higher rate of poverty then some of the countries that it is ahead of, the AVERAGE person living in the United States is still better off period, and that is what the main goal of the Human Development report. The most important statistic is the annual human development index which considers all of these factors, not just one.
Irvine511 said:
Well, why don't you state your point. The numbers I've presented are important and significant compared to the many unsubstantiated claims made about how poor the United States is, or how Bush has never accomplished anything, or that Iraq is a Civil War, Bush may in fact be Satan and so on.
There is NO Civil War in Iraq at this point. A couple of militia groups and Insurgents groups planting bombs here and there, and killing a few dozen people from time to time does not constitute a Civil War. This is a country of 25 million people. Far worse violence occured under Saddam but no one claimed Iraq was in the middle of a civil war.
US military officials in Iraq have from the very start stated that there is no civil war and have correctly sited the fact that there have been hundreds of Mosque bombings and execution style killings since 2003.
Once again, if you want an example of a civil war between 3 ethnic groups, I refer you to Bosnia.
AliEnvy
Refugee
STING2 said:
Considering how many areas of expenditure form the budget, 20% is not just a fraction, I call that a rather sizeable chunk.
STING2 said:
It IS mediocre in the context of its relative overall wealth and relatively high level of poverty.
Can you not see that?
AliEnvy
Refugee
STING2 said:
So placing #1 on GDP and #17 on the Human Poverty Index are not substantiated or significant?
Any statistic in isolation is meaningless on its own regardless of the underlying assumptions and measurements be it umemployment or HDI or anything else.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
STING, this is for another thread.
killing a few dozen people from time to time? has it occured to you that the only reason we don't have a Bosnia is because of US troops on the ground?
but continue ... i'm checking out.
AliEnvy said:
Its insignificant compared to the HDI which takes into account many other factors in addition to the poverty rate, which by the standard of most countries on the planet would not even be considered poverty. Your going off of one statistic only for OECD countries.
The most important statistic is the one that takes all these factors into account which is the HDI. The United States has the 10th highest standard of living in the world, higher than the Netherlands, Germany, Japan(who liberals claimed won the cold war) and the United Kingdom despite the fact that these countries scored better on the poverty index. A small number of people in all of the OECD countries live in poverty, even in Norway the poverty rate is not 0. But, what were looking at is what is the standard of living for the average person in all of these countries and that is shown in the HDI.
The fact remains that the United States has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
As for the Budget, US Defense spending was almost 30% of the federal budget during the peacetime of the 1980s. In addition back then, Defense Spending was 6% of GDP. Today even with the cost of fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and all the related and construction cost, it is only 4.5% of GDP. As a percentage of USA's total wealth, the United States currently spends 25% less than it did during the peacetime of the 1980s.
Irvine511 said:
Has it occured to you the tremondous changes that have happened in Iraq in only 3 years time?
As for a few dozen people being killed in single incidents from time to time, if you think that figure is to low and is actually a few hundred, meaning 200+ per incident, please site them and let us know.
On one hot summer day in the summer of 1995, 7,000 plus men from one town were lined up and executed in minutes.
What I find even more absurd about media reports is that almost any violence conducted against an Iraqi is now considered to be an act of "Civil War". Yet, who conducted the attack is unknown, but the media naturally perpatuates the myth that if it was a Shia who was attacked, then it was a Sunni who attacked him, or if it was Sunni Mosque that was attacked it was done by Shia militias, with absolutely no proof at all.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
STING: start another thread, and i'll debate with you.
too bad the administration has given up, you haven't.
continue to blame the media. it's much easier.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
continue to drink the Kool-Aid; the administration is nervous that no one else is anymore. it's much easier to regurgitate what the military and the administration tells you and quote misleading, out-of-context statistics.
STING, reality has bodyslammed you, continuously, on this issue. from WMDs to the danger SH presented to the wording of 1441 to Abu Ghraib to the reality on the ground to the strength of the insurgency to the brewing civil war.
but you're tenacity is commendable.
again: start another thread.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
OK. Let's try to get back to the subject at hand.
Here, we have a dismissing of the news because of a 25 year old redefinition of the statistic.
Now, is there any evidence that the economy is worse off using the statistical methods employed prior to the change? I think it would be a necessary element of information to support the statement.
Also, the fact the methodology of measurment changed may have meant something in the years after it occurred (as you get improvement because of the change in measurement, not because of a change in the economy). After decades of use, the year to year measurement, consistently applied, gains far more significance. Now we are measuring changes in the economy, not changes in statistical measurement.
AliEnvy
Refugee
STING2 said:
If you think placing 10th on HDI makes good sense and is purely a good news story when the US makes the MOST money, all the average power to you. Mediocrity rules!!!
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
AliEnvy said:
I think you are mixing statistics here.
If the US population were far smaller, it would be easier to achieve a higher ranking on the HDI.
AliEnvy
Refugee
nbcrusader said:
nbc, that comment demonstrates to me that you don't know about a) analyzing comparative statistics and b) how HDI is calculated.
Contrary to what you may think, size does not matter.
Irvine511 said:
The fact that the insurgency has not grown since April 2004, is not an administration talking point, but something anyone could discover if they would simply take the time to do a little research. Same with the fact that US casualties have been falling for the past 5 months, the longest sustained decrease over the past 3 years, with the past record only being 2 months. March 2006 saw the 2nd lowest number of US deaths over the past 3 years. These are not estimates, but hard facts that the media and surprisingly the administration itself have not reported or trumped heavily. I did see a few articles at the end of March report this, but it is not something that is widely known. Instead, typical media reports paint a picture of a rising insurgency and increasing rate of US deaths which is in fact the opposite of what is happening.
Misleading reports and out context or inaccurate statistics are a chararistic of the media and many of the liberals that oppose the war. Its often said that every wounded in combat soldier or marine of the 17,469 that have been wounded has been seriously injured and crippled. That is not the case though. The number wounded covers the most horrific injurys to those with minor cuts from flying glass. Of the 17,469 wounded, 9,454 returned to full combat duty in less than 72 hours. But no one in the media or on both sides of the political debate actually reports that. In addition, no one reports that the number of wounded who were not able to return to full combat duty within 72 hours fell by 50% in 2005 from the 2004 figure and the rate continues to fall in 2006.
The danger that Saddam presented to the world is a simple fact. It is not simply based on certain weapons capability but first and for most his behavior over the past 24 years of his rule and his close proximity to the planets primary energy supply and the forces with which he could use to sieze or sabotage such supplies. Honestly, do you actually remember what Saddam did in 1990? Do you have any clue the annual cost of the containment strategy in the 1990s? Do you realize that sanctions by the year 2000 had pratically disappeared with Syria completely opening its border with Iraq? Do you realize Saddam was making 3 Billion dollars a year on the black market starting in 2000? Do you realize when the United Nations inspectors were forced to leave in 1998 that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of sarin gas, 500 pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 shells with the ability to be filled with WMD agents, Ballistic Missiles that were in violation of the Ceacefire Agreement, as well programs related to the development of WMD that also violated the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement?
But no, were supposed to believe that Kuwait would be able to defeat Saddam's 430,000 man military in combat. That there was no threat from the largest tank force in the Persian Gulf. Nevermind what happened to Iran in the 1980s or Kuwait in 1990. Nothing to worry about.
As far as compliance with UN resolutions, 17 of them to be exact passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, who cares right? No one should really be worried about the non-compiance of a dictator that had invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked in the past decade, threatened the planets key energy supply with siezure or sabotage and used WMD more times than any leader in history. Countries like South Africa, Kazakstan, Ukraine and even Belarus verifiably disarmed of all their WMD in under two years, despite the fact that these countries had never committed any international violations or used WMD. But when it comes to Saddam, he deserves more than 12 years to disarm right?
Saddam was presented with one last chance to comply with 1441 or face serious consequences. He did nothing to significantly comply, nor were any of the problems left from 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out resolved. This does not take a massive amount of time as any study of the full disarmament of countries like Ukraine or Belarus shows. Saddam was told he would face serious consequences if he did not comply and that is in fact what happened. In international relations, the only things more serious than the current UN approved sanctions regime and weapons embargo, is military action, plain and simple.
After the invasion the United Nations approved the occupation of Iraq with resolution 1483. If resolution 1441 did not approve the invasion of Iraq, why did it not call for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq instead approving their presense? Where is the UN resolution or attempt at one to condemn the coalition invasion if it was unauthorized? None of these things exist, but they were all present when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 in regards to that invasion! This is ultimately the nail in the coffin for the belief that the invasion was illegal. The invasion was the obvious and necessary result of Saddam's non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules in regards to Saddam invasion of Kuwait and failure to meet the multitude of conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agrement, necessary for the safety and security of the region and ultimately the entire planet.
The United States in regards to Iraq has adopted the right policies for the most part over the past 15 years, although it has been slow to react to some dangerous developments. To many people look at US policy towards Iraq only through the events of just the past 5 years of the Bush administration. They don't understand what happened in Iraq before Bush came into office, nor are they aware of operation Desert Fox, Operation Southern Watch, the experience of UN inspectors in Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War itself. The critical strategic importance and role that Persian Gulf oil plays in the everyday lives of people all around the world is not understood. All they see is the misleading image presented by much of the media which says, "Bush lied and they died".
Despite that all that, Persian Gulf oil is safer today from foreign siezure and sabotage than it has been in decades with the removal of Saddam's regime. Provided that the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq, it will eventually develop into a stable country with a stable government that will not be a threat to its southern neighbors as Saddam's Iraq had been. Bush was successfully reelected by the a majority of Americans in 2004 despite the largest liberal campaign to defeat a Republican in history. Despite the Vote for Change tour, the Michael Moore type films and other "Bush Lied they died" crap, Bush won solidly.
Right now, its likely that President McCain will be taking over in the White House in January 2009 and will continue to steer the United States foreign policy in the right direction as Bush has done since taking office.
The policy of many liberals in regards to Iraq has not been the policy of the United States in the past, it is not the policy of the United States now, and it will not be the policy of the United States in the future.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
AliEnvy said:
nbc, that comment demonstrates to me that you don't know about a) analyzing comparative statistics and b) how HDI is calculated.
Contrary to what you may think, size does not matter.
Actually, I do understand statistics. I find the simple summaries of "mediocrity" to be lacking.
AliEnvy
Refugee
nbcrusader said:
Well alright then, you tell me why having the world's 10th best standard of living is NOT mediocre when you have the highest national income.
And please leave out comparisons to countries below 10 and reasons why 1-9 have the US to thank for their position. They are not relevant to my assertion of mediocrity.
