Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fdiron on October 05, 2002, 11:43:40 AM
-
Just got back from my economics class. My professor talked for a few minutes about our current economy. Heres what he said, and I agree (except on one thing)
1: The economy is just on the down-side of the economic cycle right now. I am pretty sure he said the current cycle started in 2000.
2: The economic slump we are in will fix itself over time, but politicians don't have time due to elections
3: Democrats are a bunch of liars and whiners. If you think things are bad now, and they truely are not (situation right now is actually comparable with the 1960s in terms of unemployment and inflation), check out the late 70s and early 80s. Inflation and unemployment was extremely high following the Vietnam War and insanely high during the Opec Embargo.
4: Bush is toying with Saddam to get people from focusing on the economy. If the Republicans can gain control of the house (Nov5 elections), some good legislation can be passed. Legislation that prevents 25 billion dollar settlements for weak-minded people who smoke cigarrettes (and in turn hurts the economy).
5: Democrats are presenting skewed information about the economy, especially on tv.
-
This part is probably true:
Bush is toying with Saddam to get people from focusing on the economy. Funny that it should come from a Republican.
This is good...
Legislation that prevents 25 billion dollar settlements for weak-minded people who smoke cigarrettes (and in turn hurts the economy).
As if lumping tax after tax after tax on cigarettes is a good thing. Difference is who gets to pay the bill. Oh wait a minute... WE DO.
-
I'm not paying that bill. I don't smoke or chew tobacco.
I learned MANY years ago that tobacco was bad for you. That settlement is another example that no one should be held responsible for their own actions in today's society. It seems it's always someone else's fault. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
So what are your thoughts on the asbestosis claims, Maverick?
-
It's not always someone else's faults. It always Clinton's fault.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So what are your thoughts on the asbestosis claims, Maverick?
I don't smoke asbestos either. Is that some kind of European Socialist habit?!?!?!:eek: :p ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That settlement is another example that no one should be held responsible for their own actions in today's society. It seems it's always someone else's fault. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No argument from me.
-
That's right Maverick. American Socialists (being rutabagas, of course), smoke Marlboro or Camel.
European socialists smoke asbestos. Without filters. That's hardship - that's tough. :D
-
the difference between tobacco and asbestos is people have known for years tobacco was bad you , in the 30's they were called "coffin nails" but people who worked with and used asbestos were not told how dangerous asbestos is.
and there is a big difference between deliberately breathing in smoke and working with something that looks like a harmless white cloth.
44MAG
-
who doesnt realise that inhaling smoke all day long is bad for you must be some kind of nit wit.
i wish i could blame budweiser and burger king for my belly growing larger than it has ever been.... but
i made those choices....
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's not always someone else's faults. It always Clinton's fault.
Well Thrawn unless you "are" slick willie then he is someone else. :D
-
Fdiron,
I too agree with most of what your professor says.
I wonder what his next job will be...
ra
-
There is nothing particularly dangerous about asbestos. Those who spend time in buildings that used asbestos are in no danger.
ANY small particles being inhaled over a long period will cause problems. This is nothing specific to asbestos. The only people who can claim to have been injured by asbestos are those who installed it.
Most asbestos claims now are simply lawyers trying to make money IMO.
Anyways thats way offtopic.
The democrats have been desperatly trying to pin some scandal on bush, even when there was no real scandal. They've tried blaming sept11 on him, Enron, and now the economy. All of which was begun long before he was in office.
-
Originally posted by ra
I too agree with most of what your professor says.
I wonder what his next job will be...
If he's tenured, he can pretty much say anything he wants without the possibility of losing his job.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I can't keep my asbestos cigarette lit... what am I doing wrong?:confused:
-
Are you a socialist McGroin? If not, then, well, you're out of luck...
BTW, do you know a chap called Phil McCrack?
-
I think the tax on ciggies is too low. It needs to be high enough to pay the cost of keeping your stinky butts alive that last two weeks when you die of a self inflicted wound(smoking). Or, you can not pay the tax but sign a waiver stating that the taxpayers dont have to keep you alive after 50 years of age.
hardcase
-
now go to your republican history profesor and ask what happends when one party gets uncheck control of any nation.
Oh, i forgot. Republicans are just saints.....
As for economists, they are kinda funny. They remind me of communists. They cling onto a utopic idea and refuse to understand that real life doesn't validate it in all cases.
-
"It needs to be high enough to pay the cost of keeping your stinky butts alive that last two weeks when you die of a self inflicted wound(smoking)."
Here in the UK, we're paying about $7 for a pack of cigarettes..and the tax income from that is about 3 times the amount spent on treating *all* cancer related patients(including research).
Basicly, the goverment can't afford for people to quit smoking..
Daff
-
Originally posted by Daff
"It needs to be high enough to pay the cost of keeping your stinky butts alive that last two weeks when you die of a self inflicted wound(smoking)."
Here in the UK, we're paying about $7 for a pack of cigarettes..and the tax income from that is about 3 times the amount spent on treating *all* cancer related patients(including research).
Basicly, the goverment can't afford for people to quit smoking..
Daff
I always get a chuckle out of the folks who talk about taxing cigarettes out of existence.
Raise taxes on smokes, more folks stop smoking, gov't income drops.
Raise taxes on smokes, more folks stop smoking, gov't income drops.
etc etc ad nauseum until noone (expcept the filthy rich) smokes.
Seems like that's what's happening in this neck of the woods, they've hiked the tobacco tax several times since I moved up here.
But what happens when they finally tax cigarettes so much that everyone quits smoking? Gov't gonna lose a fair chunk of change.
-
So its OK for the Nicotine Delivery System companies to KNOWINGLY construct a product that is as addictive as heroin, and then KNOWINGLY work on ways to increase the addictiveness of that product while KNOWINGLY attempting to hook new users at a young enough age to buy more of this product over their lifetime?
Sure, those guys aren't liable at all... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by fd ski
now go to your republican history profesor and ask what happends when one party gets uncheck control of any nation.
Ahh, Fdski, we already know the answer to that...Dems had control since the 60's...see where we are now socially? ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ahh, Fdski, we already know the answer to that...Dems had control since the 60's...see where we are now socially? ;)
ROFL.. Oh yea! We were Soooooooo much better off in the 60's! Go read a history book Rip.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So its OK for the Nicotine Delivery System companies to KNOWINGLY construct a product that is as addictive as heroin, and then KNOWINGLY work on ways to increase the addictiveness of that product while KNOWINGLY attempting to hook new users at a young enough age to buy more of this product over their lifetime?
Sure, those guys aren't liable at all... :rolleyes:
When the surgeon general has been telling us that tobacco is bad for us for better than forty years, and the general populace knew it before that, (the term coffin nails referring to cigarettes dates back to at least the 30's) this woman bears no responsibility?
It is known that head butting a window can cause bleeding... but is I choose to do it, then can I sue the window company?
Besides, the Tobacco companies were un-knowing dupes of Native Americans. When they made an addict of Sir Walter Raliegh, they knew what they were doing.:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ROFL.. Oh yea! We were Soooooooo much better off in the 60's! Go read a history book Rip.
since the Sixties, get an Evelens Reading course Tahgut. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
since the Sixties, get an Evelens Reading course Tahgut. ;)
So you weren't implying that we have gotten socially worse since the Democrats gained control of the House? What exactly did you mean then?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So its OK for the Nicotine Delivery System companies to KNOWINGLY construct a product that is as addictive as heroin, and then KNOWINGLY work on ways to increase the addictiveness of that product while KNOWINGLY attempting to hook new users at a young enough age to buy more of this product over their lifetime?
Sure, those guys aren't liable at all... :rolleyes:
I agree with your assement MT...am I am democrat now:confused:
-
:D Welcome to the darkside :D
-
The social moral decline and skyrocketing murder rates are tied to the Democrats, since about the mid- 60's. Yes.
-
Rip,
What are you talking about? Crime stats have been going down! And murder rates of people over 25 has been going continuously down since '70, which is as far back as I could quickly find stats. Go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
Crow
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The social moral decline and skyrocketing murder rates are tied to the Democrats, since about the mid- 60's. Yes.
Wipe that stuff off yer shoe Rip. I think you stepped in it this time.
Sooooo, if the Dems have such control as to be responsible for the "moral decline", I guess they were also responsible for the moral uprising that resulted in the end of the second class citizen in this Country. Both minorities and women benefitted from these changes to the "social morals".
Life wasn't really like "Father Knows Best" Rip.
-
What happened in 1994 that made those crime charts turn down?
-
Clinton in 1992.
:p
-
What happened in 1994 that made those crime charts turn down?
The Crime Bill that Clinton signed into law?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Clinton in 1992.
:p
94 was the Republican take back of congress not bill clinton ;) :p
-
You're both wrong. Violence by gang members peaked in that year. Many of the murders of "children" that contributed to the high homicide rate were actually murders of gang members by rival gangs during turf wars.
Some generations seem to have a predilection to crime, shaped by the unique social and environmental conditions that shape them. As a result, crime rates tend to fluctuate, more or less continuously. Such fluctuations are not easy to predict, despite what sociologists and criminologists say to the contrary. For instance, if widespread poverty is the root cause of rising crime rates, then how does one explain the decade of the 1930's, when crime rates were level across the board, or even declined in some categories? How does one explain the fact that much of the juvenile crime in the last decade can be attributed to the children of affluent upper and middle-class children?
Not only are these trends difficult to predict, they are difficult to control. No one approach to solving crime will be successful by itself. A variety of approaches are needed; rehabilitation, education, and long-term incarceration of repeat offenders, used together, seem to yield the best results. The impact of each of these methods is lessened when they are used in isolation.
Regards, Shuckins