LearJett+

the Mayans, from whom we get the date '2012,' did not say the world will end on 2012, they said that there will be a cataclysmic event. they actually have predicted events past 2012, as far as the year 36,000 something. people have misinterpreted what they wrote.

letting customers smoke is part of the service. what service is the construction company providing by not making its workers wear helmets? we fundamentally disagree and no debate will fix that. a government should respect the rights of a business owner to produce a service to its patrons if it so wants.

Your "logic" is no subs!@#$%^&*ute for real economics. This isn't a debate about modern warfare, so !@#$%^&* your class. This is an economic debate and you're arguing in pitch black. That's why I'm done with this thread.

bak, you comparing it to a construction company is like me comparing it to the government authoritarianism -- the government is interfering with a poor, innocent bar owner's way of conducting his business. i'm not going there, why are you?

it's not a construction company, it's a !@#$%^&*ing bar. the owner should have the right to make it whatever kind of establishment he or she wants. civil liberties, man. in states without the ban, some bars aren't smoking and some are. people go to them accordingly.

I just wish someone in the mall had had their own gun with them (legally, by the 2nd amendment) and killed the guy.

If you don't like the risks, don't work there. That's what you're paid for. It goes both ways. That way you all are depicting it is that the general public doesn't like smoke. The smoking bars turn away people who don't like smoke, who go to the non-smoking bars. Let the consumer decide.

If the owner of the pub wants it to be a smoking establishment, however, they should be able to make it so.

Have you ever taken an economics class? It's not about working more, it's about working more efficiently... which we have and will continue to do as technology is developed. Do you even realize how much more Buffett's 18% is than your 33%? The top 1% income earners in this country already pay 90% of tax dollars, and you want more? It is the rich who invest, and it is the investment that drives our economy. Stop investment and stop our growth -- then the debt will REALLY matter. Do you even know what you're talking about? When people have more money because the government hasn't taken it, they spend and invest it. The tax on this increase in spending alone is higher than just the straight taxes that would have been collected sans tax decrease. It's not mythical -- it's proven. The US economy won't be stable, produce as highly, or grow if you stop investment and spending. Not every market is present in China. In fact, most aren't. The "tax cut" policy (as you label it) does create a greater gap between the wealthy and poor in the same country. What you are missing is the fact that our poor are more wealthy then the poor in other countries. What are you talking about? What Scandinavian countries have higher anything than the US? You admit low taxes build an economy... what would cause that growth to stop? It doesn't. Stop falling back on your "wealthy this" and "wealthy that." It's PROVEN that tax cuts cultivate growth. If you took any form of macroeconomics, you would know this. The cost of the war in Iraq so far: $474,271,400,000 over the last four and a half years, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Do you know the cost of Social Security over just the last four years? $2,200,000,000,000. Medicare over the last four years? A little over $1,000,000,000,000. You call the war pointless, but some see it as a benefit in the future. (I'm not about to debate the war with you, by the way.) Social security and medicare can be criticized for their low returns when compared to private savings. Take a macro or micro class and then come talk about economics.

that's not true. people have always predicted that producitivity will cap out, but it hasn't and won't. Astro, it's not a 'loophole' for investors to not pay entire taxes on the money that they invest (it's not on all their taxes), it's a policy to ensure and cultivate economic growth. there doesn't need to be any increase in taxes (there probably should be a cut, or move to a Fair Tax), I agree that it should be a cut in spending. you cite the war in iraq, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to our failing welfare spending.

Their paycheck covers their work environment.

speaking of Islamic wife beating.... just kidding. i'd be interested to see statistics on how often children who have homosexual parents are homosexual.

it's statistically proven that it hurts your chances. the solution to the problem of public education is accountability. tenure is garbage. a teacher should continue to be a teacher because they can teach. i had so many old fart teachers in my high school that didn't challenge us because it would have been too much work for them to grade. i realize that teachers' unions are good in some instances, but often their demands are just ridiculous. accountability will be detrimental to some teachers, yes... but what is the goal of education? is the product the teacher or the student? people complain that vouchers cause public schools to lose money, but if students get a better education, who cares if a few public schools shut down and students and teachers together move to other, BETTER schools.

I guess I'm not as experienced at growing marijuana as you guys are. Don't you guys hate corporations and big tobacco? If legalized, that's all that marijuana would turn in to. I can see it now: "Big Marijuana" It seems that legalization inevitable, though. Just remember that I predicted the corporations. also, i don't know what states you guys live in... but smoking bans in public places really piss me off. i don't smoke, but the government should respect the wish of a private business owner to make his establishment a smoking establishment. if customers don't like that, they'll go elsewhere.

not necessarily. american economy has actually been doing worse, hence the fall in the value of the dollar relative to canada and euros as well. first, second and third world still exists, and it's still useful because they have distinguishable characteristics in each one. using just "developing nations" doesn't really say anything. it's been doing worse, yes, but the numbers still indicate that growth of productivity > growth of the debt. as long as that continues, we're golden. also, trying to alleviate the debt (which is, for the most part, impossible) would probably come at a cost of that growth of productivity.