Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

impact of terrorism on world economy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    American colonist faced the most advanced, fearsom, modern weapon armed, well disciplined, force, which the world had yet seen. They risked all. With all they had. And triumphed.
    If you're pet, violence hating, "good Muslims", the 99.9% majority, do nothing, they fail to contribute to the solution. I have no patience for "what if, in a perfect word." ... It don't exist.
    I have another opinion on these folks posture, one far less flattering, It's quite possible ... they claim one thing, while Philosophically supporting another ... silent approval ... If they do not contribute to the solution, their plight is of far less consequence to same.
    You say I should be everything short of ashamed of myself. I am not. You say, they ... the Majority ... feel such and so, You may speak truth. However, the burden of proof lies with you. Prove it to answer your question .... "They" advance an insurgency. ... we are what we do ... wether you choose to believe you will be judged by God, or Allah, that is the critereon upon which you shall be judged. In this life or the next. (a personal matter between you and HE)

    ....please, refrain in the future, from referral to America's
    Declaration of Independence
    as a tangent, or I assure you, not only I, may be found inconsolable.

    I've never ever, been the solutions guy, only ever, the tool by which policy was applied. It had always been beyond the scope of my duties to indentify the foe. (all enemy, foreign or domestic) Doesn't change the job mate.
    Last edited by 1 Observer; 05 Feb 08,, 04:43.

    Comment


    • #32
      For an observer, your observations are ill conceived and poorly worded. I know I would have a hell of a time understanding your eval and I certainly would not make any command decision based on your say so ... simply because I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

      Comment


      • #33
        Are all living under tyrannous rule … If they, the peace loving Majority, said enough, banded together imagine this sort of a solution … the one which worked here… what they decided to do was …
        . I have no patience for "what if, in a perfect word." ... It don't exist.
        ...
        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          For an observer, your observations are ill conceived and poorly worded. I know I would have a hell of a time understanding your eval and I certainly would not make any command decision based on your say so ... simply because I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

          I thought it was only me. I honestly didn't understand any of his posts, even though they were in plain english. I was beginning to think I had to start reading novels again to enhance my vocab, or pull out a dictionary/thes to disect his posts. Thank god it was him.
          Last edited by Mobbme; 05 Feb 08,, 19:01.

          Comment


          • #35
            Bump.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #36
              After scanning over this I think we should specify the terrorists.

              1.Islamic Extremists

              2.Eco-terrorists(Al Gore)

              3.OPEC

              IMO the two latter are affecting the economy the most currently. Al queda struck a hard blow on 911 but seems to have lost its capacity to mount domestic operations as of late.(too bad for them bastards!)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                After scanning over this I think we should specify the terrorists.

                1.Islamic Extremists

                2.Eco-terrorists(Al Gore)

                3.OPEC

                IMO the two latter are affecting the economy the most currently. Al queda struck a hard blow on 911 but seems to have lost its capacity to mount domestic operations as of late.(too bad for them bastards!)
                There is a world of difference between groups like ELF and those who share Gore's views and willingness to work within the political system for what they think is right.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  There is a world of difference between groups like ELF and those who share Gore's views and willingness to work within the political system for what they think is right.
                  My bad. When I said eco, it looked like I meant ecological. What I meant was economical.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                    My bad. When I said eco, it looked like I meant ecological. What I meant was economical.
                    I don't buy that either. I think Bush has done more to hurt the long term economic health of America than Gore could if you cloned 10,000 of him. Bush is a walking talking economic disaster. he has already given away my kids future to pay for his war and our parents prescriptions.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      I don't buy that either. I think Bush has done more to hurt the long term economic health of America than Gore could if you cloned 10,000 of him. Bush is a walking talking economic disaster. he has already given away my kids future to pay for his war and our parents prescriptions.
                      The burden of OIF is a drop in the bucket of the economy's income over the long-term. Also, Medicare Part D is actually one of the most economically efficient government programs out there.
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        I don't buy that either. I think Bush has done more to hurt the long term economic health of America than Gore could if you cloned 10,000 of him. Bush is a walking talking economic disaster. he has already given away my kids future to pay for his war and our parents prescriptions.
                        I'm not a big Bush fan either, however my dissappointment lies with his soft stance on illegal immigration and failure to secure our borders, which I do consider an economic and security threat.

                        I must disagree that Bush is the cause of your concerns, I would blame congress for all that.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Shek View Post
                          The burden of OIF is a drop in the bucket of the economy's income over the long-term. Also, Medicare Part D is actually one of the most economically efficient government programs out there.
                          How is it economically efficient since it increased federal outlays without increasing income? And the people who get the benefits do not pay taxes.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            How is it economically efficient since it increased federal outlays without increasing income? And the people who get the benefits do not pay taxes.
                            http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wor...tml#post461270

                            In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, the Medicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction, and at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation. These two components alone cover 87% of the social cost of publicly financing the benefit.
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Shek,

                              This drug program sounds suspiciously like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The government bulk-buys widely used drugs & subsidizes their purchase on prescription by the public. In theory (and usually practice) a drug can only get on the PBS if it: 1) meets a clear theraputic need & b) is a clear improvement over existing available drugs.

                              This latter requirement rewards innovation rather than 'me too' drugs. The other advantage, of course, is a healthier public. Not sure on the economics of that, but I'm betting it saves more money than it costs.

                              I believe this (and our entire medicare system) is the sort of thing many conservative Americans dismiss as 'socialized medicine' (whatever the hell that means). We think its sorta cool.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                                Shek,

                                This drug program sounds suspiciously like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The government bulk-buys widely used drugs & subsidizes their purchase on prescription by the public. In theory (and usually practice) a drug can only get on the PBS if it: 1) meets a clear theraputic need & b) is a clear improvement over existing available drugs.

                                This latter requirement rewards innovation rather than 'me too' drugs. The other advantage, of course, is a healthier public. Not sure on the economics of that, but I'm betting it saves more money than it costs.

                                I believe this (and our entire medicare system) is the sort of thing many conservative Americans dismiss as 'socialized medicine' (whatever the hell that means). We think its sorta cool.
                                Bigfella,

                                I'd like to see a better at getting at the same thing - it's a statistical probability that you're going to spend the majority of your medical care "dollars" in the latter years of your life, and so I'd prefer to have a method that would induce savings in the younger years to pay for medical needs in later years instead of having the government be the bill payer.

                                I've only digested two books thus far on health economics, so I'm not to a point where I have a more settled preferred solution, but I'd prefer to have the government spending only on those who truly need a safety net to eliminate as many free riders as possible.
                                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X