Originally posted by DrKFaccurate and realistic as usual.
Even if what you are suggesting is true (and I have read plenty to contradict your assertion), since he was referring to hooligans as those who "scream and shout continually in hopes of drowning out any rational efforts to discuss the healthcare bill", it doesn't matter whether they are 25 or 105 years old. The point was that their hooliganism, following tactic ...[text shortened]... you approve of this 'debating' tactic, and can't imagine you backing down from that now.
Originally posted by joe beyserPerhaps they are trying to make as many people lose their jobs as possible. That way they can get their "free" health care some momentum to be passed.
I heard on the radio that unemployment is really over 16 percent instead of 10. The people that are unemployed and have quit trying to find work are considered marginally attached to the work force. If the numbers are fudged on that then the question still remains, how do we trust govt on healthcare?
Originally posted by generalissimoNot only that, that has always been the method for measuring the unemployment rate. Should my wife, who goes to school and takes care of our daughter be considered a "statistic" for unemployment? Of course not.
how can I possibly drive my car if I can't even ride a horse?
oh yes, because the two things are totally different, and there is no connection between the two.
Obviously there are those who gave up looking for work. But IMO they're likely few and far between. The only people who choose not to continue looking for employment are those who don't *depend* on being employed.
Originally posted by USArmyParatroopergood point.
Not only that, that has always been the method for measuring the unemployment rate. Should my wife, who goes to school and takes care of our daughter be considered a "statistic" for unemployment? Of course not.
Obviously there are those who gave up looking for work. But IMO they're likely few and far between. The only people who choose not to continue looking for employment are those who don't *depend* on being employed.
the statistcs aren't even reliable, never mind relevant.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell i'm sure Kazet could make up a stat that would disagree with you.....maybe an unemployment per capita stat....
Not only that, that has always been the method for measuring the unemployment rate. Should my wife, who goes to school and takes care of our daughter be considered a "statistic" for unemployment? Of course not.
Obviously there are those who gave up looking for work. But IMO they're likely few and far between. The only people who choose not to continue looking for employment are those who don't *depend* on being employed.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI addressed this issue in a recent topic. The most reliable way of comparing unemployment is by looking at employment rates, even though criteria for these can vary somewhat among countries as well. The unemployment rate of a single country is a measure for trends in unemployment as long as criteria remain constant.
Well i'm sure Kazet could make up a stat that would disagree with you.....maybe an unemployment per capita stat....
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/24/38335554.pdf
Originally posted by KazetNagorrai know, i was joking. But you prove the point that most people on here have no sense of humor...esp the ones posting in the debate forum.
I addressed this issue in a recent topic. The most reliable way of comparing unemployment is by looking at employment rates, even though criteria for these can vary somewhat among countries as well. The unemployment rate of a single country is a measure for trends in unemployment as long as criteria remain constant.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/24/38335554.pdf
Originally posted by sh76Because it's socialsist for crying out loud.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6958488
I'd love for someone to explain to me why it's "un-American" to debate the healthcare issue, but was laudable democracy in action to criticize the war in Iraq.