chuckakers

You mean when they commit a second felony by using a fake social security number? The first felony being in the country illegally, of course. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

C'mon!! Gimme a date and I'm there!!! And a jump or two also???????? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Hats off to Larry for 50 years of hopping out of airplanes!!!!!!!!!! I hope to celebrate the same someday, and hope you're on the load!! Thanks to Todd & Christy Bell and the family at Skydive Houston for bringing it home for Larry!!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

i didn't say you were a racist - i gave a reasonable hint that this may be a possibility as you say this is not so... fair enough but you would be in a better position to debate if you didn't resort to rhetorical stereotypes as your launching point Using your logic, we can call anyone anything we want on this forum by simply adding the words "I think it's a reasonable possibility that you are a" (insert personal attack here). The launching point of my debate was not stereo-typical. The launching point of my debate was people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc.,who are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. That's a pretty specific group of people, don't you think? If my description of a specific group of people is stereo-typical to you, I can't help ya. I'll leave that to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So I can't respond in kind when someone accuses me of the same thing? Read his post and tell me that's not what he did. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3504137;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; Let's be fair here, Bill. If this is really an open forum, why are you singling me out when my statements were in response to someone accusing me of being a racist????? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

First you ask me to enlighten you and give you numbers. When I do, you tell me my experiences are not relevant and that the numbers don't mean anything. Then you attempt to change the subject with tax "underpayments" and the war. If you want me to address the issue, then address it yourself instead of making comparisons to things you feel waste money. We can discuss those on their own merits or lack thereof. Two wrongs don't make a right, but attempting to simply divert the argument in a new direction is a cheap ploy, that is if you really do want to have an honest debate on the topic. The fact is $7.3 BILLION returned to the government in just a 4 year period is an enormous amount of fraud. When the government readily admits that it only catches a small amount of the overall fraud committed each year, that number is more likely 2, 3, or maybe even 4 or 5 times that $73 billion - and that's one stinking program! Now, if the same holds true for Social Security, housing subsidies, s-chip, food stamps, unemployment, and the HUNDREDS of other programs being worked by people (and there's plenty of evidence that it does), the total number must be astounding...no, STAGGERING. Now if you would like to discuss the topic you challenged me on, I'd like to hear your response. If, however, you plan to again trivialize my statements (backed up with stats, mind you), and attempt to take the debate in other directions, don't bother replying. For what it's worth, I'm in no way saying we shouldn't have these programs. They are very important and necessary for those who really need them. However, the fraud in the system is well documented and rampant. THAT's what you wanted me to show you, and I did. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

don't worry - i'm getting all your coloured 'whistles' (if you haven't the guts to actually say what you mean - your problem) Wow, what a bigoted thing to say. I was in no way referring to any particular race. Entitlement program fraud is committed by scumbags from all races. Ya know, I was wondering if some bigot would try to connect my statement to a racist point of view. As usual, the people who scream racism the loudest are the racists themselves. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

you do like your stereotypes (i bet you think all skydivers are death crazed near suiciders - and one joint will turn you into a psycho killer) Not sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. If, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? Give us numbers. Let me tell you from personal experience. I work with a young lady who is working the system. Yes, I said I work with her. She has a job. She makes sure she keeps her income below the level where her "entitlements" would begin to be reduced or cut off, and repeatedly turns down extra hours and full-time status for that reason. She has lived with the father of one of her children (3 total, all out of wedlock) for a long time, but won't get married because their combined earnings would put them well above the threshold to get "entitlements". She is routinely on the phone with her "entitlement" girlfriends, coaching them on the right answers when talking to case workers and filling forms to maximize the "assistance" they can get. All the while, she drives a 3 year old car, owns a nice double-wide (in the boyfriend's name, of course), has a big screen TV and cable with all the top tier channels ($1000 per year), practically lives on a cell phone ($500 per year), and throws HUGE parties for each of her kids birthdays - huge like 60 - 80 kids, rental moonwalk, hired clowns, etc ($1K? - $2K? x 3 kids). She must be particularly proud of her youngest daughters looks, as she has professional portraits of her taken several times a year, and is planning on putting her in beauty pageants - not cheap. When I asked her about all this, her response was that these "entitlements" are offered by the government, so why shouldn't she take them? When I mention that she is really just taking money from taxpayers, she says that's not her problem. She comes to work almost everyday with $5 or $6 worth of fast food ($1200 per year), a couple bucks worth of candy bars ($500 per year), brings new celebrity tabloid rags when they come out at $3 or $4 each X 4 or 5 rags each week ($1500 per year), and wears new clothes on a more than regular basis (cost per year big, but unknown). She has told me that she has many. many friends that do the same thing, and that they commonly share tactics to milk the system. Nailing her for fraud would be tough because she technically fits the criteria to get the "assistance". It's tough to prove that someone is purposely keeping themselves in a position to stay on these programs, short of testifying what they have openly said to others. Do that, and you'll be considered the bad guy that took food out of some kids mouth. Fraud against the hundreds of local state and federal programs is not a small problem. According to the False Claims Act Legal Center, there was $7.3 BILLION returned to the government from fraudulent Medicaid claims between 2000 and 2004! http://www.taf.org/FCA-2006report.pdf, and that's just from the people that got caught!! The government readily admits it only catches a fraction of all fraud. Think about that stat. It only cover Medicaid. It doesn't include social security, food stamps, unemployment, s-chip, or the literally HUNDREDS of federal, state, and local "entitlement" programs. I could dig around and find the numbers for all these programs too, but just looking at the Medicaid number gives us a pretty good look at the fraud across the board (unless you will now claim that Medicaid is the only area where fraud is a problem - and $7.3 BILLION returned to the government over 4 years in one single program is a problem. Enlightened? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Would you kindly show us where the Constitution mentions the "pursuit of happiness", please? I didn't say it was. Sorry if you didn't catch the point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

you do like your stereotypes (i bet you think all skydivers are death crazed near suiciders - and one joint will turn you into a psycho killer) Not sure who you think I'm stereotyping. If you mean people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then I guess I am. If, however, you think I'm stereo-typing any group other than people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., then you would be wrong. And since the people I'm talking about actually are working the system for welfare, free medical treatments, food stamps, etc., etc., I suppose I'm not really stereo-typing at all. Maybe when I mention people who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., you think of a specific group, and that's stereo-typing. You just didn't notice. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

B'bye. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

i'll think you'll find that doubling the minimum wage will definitely entice lazy people out to work - duh! (and if they're not already working who is supporting them?) The minimum wage has been raised many times over the years, yet there's no evidence that more people started looking for jobs because of it. People who work the system for welfare, rent subsidies, free medical treatment, food stamps, etc., etc., are not going to work for things they already get for filling out a few forms, sobbing to a government councilor, and waiting by the mailbox for a check from me and the rest of the taxpayers. On the other hand, people do go to work when they get cut off from such "assistance". Strange how that works. And to answer your question, me and the rest of the taxpayers are supporting them. See paragraph 1. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Article 1, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.... Not a word in there about providing for individual welfare. That's where pursuit of happiness comes in. It's not the federal governments job to take care of any individual person - according to the Constituion anyway. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Correct. Promote is a broader term that could include provide, among other methods. That won't fly. If the government is to "provide", there would be no need to "promote". The difference between the two terms is pretty obvious. Unless you're one of those that believes the Constitution is a "living document" subject to the definitions of the day. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I've read the Constitution many times, from Preamble to Amendment XXVII, and there is no mention of a free market economy, nor are there any comparisons of different economic systems in there. Furthermore, there's no mention of the need to keep government regulations to a minimum. Have you ever even read the document? It also doesn't say anything about free healthcare, medicaid, minimum wage, welfare, progessive tax systems, etc. The pursuit of happiness is different than government subsidized handouts in an attempt to make everyone happy. Some would point to the clause in the pre-amble about the general welfare of the citizens in counterpoint. I would tell those people to read it as written. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It says "promote" the general welfare. That's very different than to "provide" for the general welfare. The framers were very careful when crafting the Constitution, drawing distinctions through the use of specific words and phrases. It does say "secure the blessings of liberty". You know, like the government not controlling me. Government regulation is as much oppression as any other form, even if it doesn't involve torture rooms or trips to a gulag. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

We don't either. That's why we spend more money on health and human services than any other non-defense item in our budget. Unfortunately, our system has given so much to so many for so long, that some here want to just give everything to everyone....except those who suceed on their own, of course. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

you're confusing me, a living person, with the ridiculous stereotypes and cliches that clutter your head (and mostly get filtered out in real people) a national health service works very well - for rich and poor alike (you'll like it!) Sure, what could better than my government deciding what medical procedures I'm worth? Too old? You don't get that liver transplant. Wouldn't listen to your assigned government "medical advisor" telling you to excersize more? No blood pressure medicine for you. Didn't vote democrat? We think you need a little mental "rehabilitation". The lemmings never see the cliff coming. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Or give up the cable tv, $3K customs wheels, cigarettes, weekly visits to the mall and buy insurance instead. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Doubling the minimum wage won't make lazy people go to work. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Interesting. Even with a rise in the amount of folks having trouble with medical bills, it seems the truth is far from B.O.'s words. Anything to get "reform" accept by the lemmings, I guess. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2009/03/medical-bankrup.html Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Start here Parachute drops operate under part 91 in most situations: http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91.html Specific regs on skydiving: http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_105.html Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There is outrage from the conservatives. Unfortunately, besides Fox News, there isn't a television outlet for conservatives, which is the medium that most influences people in the U.S. (a sorry statement in itself). This is a classic case of "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention". Most Americans are too busy watching fat-asses lose weight for prizes or a gaggle of skanks competing for the attention of single man to realize what's really going on. And that's just the way they want it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's what I was thinking when I heard the Messiah make that speech. Leave it to Stewart to nail it. When B.O. said the remaining troops wouldn't be cambat troops I thought "so, we're going to have cooks and clerks train and support Iraqi combat troops and hit select targets????" The video clearly shows yet one more subject that gets the Messiah double-speak. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Let me correct your bold notations and add a few notes: WASHINGTON (AFP) — Americans are skeptical that President Barack Obama will solve the economic crisis within two years but still overwhelming approve his job performance, a new poll found Wednesday. Most voters also support Obama's mortgage rescue plan unveiled last month in a bid to quell a rising tide of home foreclosures -- but think it is unfair to people who played by the rules and met all their payments. The large snapshot of more than 2,500 voters by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute reveals deep pessimism among US voters about the state of the economy and prospects for a recovery. Half of the survey sample was asked whether they believed that the federal government could fix the economic crisis within two years, and answered no by a margin of 68 to 26 percent. The other slice of the survey group was asked whether Obama alone would be able to lead the country out of the economic mire within the same time period, and answered no by a 64 to 28 percent margin. Yet Obama's approval rating, so far at least, seems immune to the impact of the worst economic crisis in decades -- 59 percent of those polled said they approved of the job their new president was doing, compared to 25 percent who did not. Oh yeah? Try this http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-bush.html Overall, voters approve of Obama's handling of the economy 57 to 33 percent, and significantly give him much higher marks on the issue -- 56 to 26 percent -- than Republicans. "President Barack Obama's approval rating is solid, compared to the historical record of new presidents," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute. "But the lofty numbers he enjoyed after his election are leveling off, largely because of declining support among Republicans," Brown said. There is also more good news than bad for Obama on three of his key domestic policy priorities, which he has been highlighting in the last two weeks. By a 55 to 39 percent margin voters believe that he will get healthcare reform -- an issue that has bedeviled past Democratic presidents -- through the Congress this year. Believeing and approving of it are very different things By a 61 to 35 percent breakdown they also say they believe Obama when he promises not to raise taxes on anyone with a family income under 250,000 dollars a year. (which he has already done) But the president's vow, made last week to cut the ballooning budget deficit in half by the end of his term in 2013, draws more cynicism. Fifty-five percent of Americans do not believe he can do it, compared to 38 percent who do. The survey was conducted between February 25 and March 2 among 2,573 voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX