chuckakers

You really want my $1.19? (I still can't figure out how that was what they owed me) Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum? Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways. It's called incentivising good deeds and it works pretty well....or did. Why would good deeds need incentives? Isn't being good incentive enough in itself? (Maybe not for Republicans.) The facts: Biden and wife averaged $369 per year to charities in the past 10 years. Biden and wife claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 or 0.3 percent of income of nearly $320,000. McCain in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and charitable contributions of $105,467, or 26 percent of total income. McCain files a separate return from wife. The totals do not include Ms. McCain’s charitable contributions. Obama and wife donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in income. Seems I remember Gore and Kerry followed the democrat mold too. I also remember during the election hearing about a poll from one of the big research outfits that people who identified themselves as democrats gave far less overall in dollars and even volunteer work than people ho identified themselves as republicans. That makes sense, though. Maybe Democrats don't give as much to charity because getting a tax deduction would take money away from the government. Fascinating but not relevant. How does any of that information answer the question of WHY a good deed isn't incentive enough? It doesn't. ] Just as I figured - performing an evasive maneuver. Uh...yeah, ok. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum? Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways. It's called incentivising good deeds and it works pretty well....or did. Why would good deeds need incentives? Isn't being good incentive enough in itself? (Maybe not for Republicans.) The facts: Biden and wife averaged $369 per year to charities in the past 10 years. Biden and wife claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 or 0.3 percent of income of nearly $320,000. McCain in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and charitable contributions of $105,467, or 26 percent of total income. McCain files a separate return from wife. The totals do not include Ms. McCain’s charitable contributions. Obama and wife donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in income. Seems I remember Gore and Kerry followed the democrat mold too. I also remember during the election hearing about a poll from one of the big research outfits that people who identified themselves as democrats gave far less overall in dollars and even volunteer work than people ho identified themselves as republicans. That makes sense, though. Maybe Democrats don't give as much to charity because getting a tax deduction would take money away from the government. Fascinating but not relevant. How does any of that information answer the question of WHY a good deed isn't incentive enough? It doesn't. I just wanted to take moment to point out an interesting contrast since the reply took a jab at republicans (which Im not, BTW). The answer to the question posed is simple. Already generous people will tend to give more when they know they will get a break for it. Greedy people won't give whether an incentive is offered or not. So I guess you could say the incentive is to get generous people to up the ante to cover what the greedy people won't give. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Companies going out of business are a healthy part of an economy. It serves efficiency.. I guess that's why the economy is so healthy right now. Laugh all you want, it is better for ALL of us if the federal government stays the hell out of the way, and the strong businesses survive. The libs don't get that. They won't be happy until everyone is equally miserable. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You must think I'm reading your posts again. This is so very entertaining. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So it reduces the benefit from giving, but does not eliminate it. And this is probably for adjusted gross income of $250,000. Which means that you take all the business deductions first. That means that if you're a small business owner taking home $250,000 (already less than 20% of small business owners), you are vanishingly unlikely to have this as an issue. Donald Trump is likely to be impacted. Wendy W. Re-read my post. My point was/is that Obama said people earning less that $250K won't have a tax hike, then we find the number is $209K for having certain deductions reduced or cut altogether. Gross or net, business owner or W-2 employee, it's still a sham. A reduction in deductions IS a tax hike. And here's another good one. You know why Obama is giving tax rebates rather than just cutting the tax rate? Because you'll have to pay income taxes on your rebate!! $13 extra per week in your pocket? Try more like $8 or $9. Welcome to change, comrades. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

so, er...um....what are we talking about? I think the core of reality here is that this is all just a bunch of horse shit. And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

FINALLY - a thread that is actually hitting at the core of reality! It's amazing how many people from differing points of view are thinking the same thing. Communism anyone? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It’s not about *me*. Never has been. That’s the point. I’ve never invoked ‘me’ as reference (altho’ I will be speaking at the Capitol for the first time next week … but not about radical Salafists directly). It’s the direct words and experience of The USAF officer who led the intelligence and interrogation operations that led to finding and killing al Zarqawi. GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret) Senator John McCain FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan, who averted a real-ticking time bombing situation with a radical Islamist terrorists FBI Special Dennis Formel, who obtained the identity of Ramzi bin al Shibh (the “20th hijacker”) LTC James Corum, USA (ret), military intelligence, he also was part of the Coalition Military Assistance and Training Team in Iraq in 2003 & 2004 Bob Baer, retired CIA operative David Becker, DIA Brian Boetig, FBI Michael Kremlacek USA Intelligence Robert McFadden, former CIFA (it was a DoD field intelligence agency) C.A. Morgan III, Intelligence Technology Innovation Center (aka ITIC, part of CIA, unless they’re ‘officially’ ODNI now) Kenneth Rollins, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (another DoD agency) Scott Shumate, former CIFA Andre Simons, FBI the Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Other than Sen John McCain (recently) & Morgan those guys are all operators and/or interrogators. Like any model, strategy needs accurate data to generate accurate results. The alternative model for developing strategy is the one Doug Feith used, which ties well with your Tom Piras reference. Since you assert authority, on what operational basis do you dispute them? /Marg You think I'm asserting authority. That is so sexy. >>>It’s not about *me*. Never has been. That’s the point. I’ve never invoked ‘me’ as reference (altho’ I will be speaking at the Capitol for the first time next week).

Perhaps you should elaborate on your qualifications to make such a distinction. I'm sure we'll all (1) be terribly impressed and (2) recognize that you were right all along. .jim They cut people's heads off for being the "wrong" religion!!! Aside from watching the f*cking news, what the hell other qualifications do I need? Do you not see the brutal nature this enemy???????? When you don't have a valid argument on the issue, just resort to questioning the validity of your opponents argument. Go do your homework, kid. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I suggest you read my post a bit more carefully - or at all. I did not say NerdChicky was naive about national security. I said I believe she has a lot to learn about the vicious nature of the terrorists. There is quite a difference. Nice analogy about Kirk, though. It reminds me of the guy that told Tommy Piras he should turn on his Cypres and wear a helmet. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum? Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways. It's called incentiving good deeds and it works pretty well....or did. Why would good deeds need incentives? Isn't being good incentive enough in itself? (Maybe not for Republicans.) The facts: Biden and wife averaged $369 per year to charities in the past 10 years. Biden and wife claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 or 0.3 percent of income of nearly $320,000. McCain in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and charitable contributions of $105,467, or 26 percent of total income. McCain files a separate return from wife. The totals do not include Ms. McCain’s charitable contributions. Obama and wife donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in income. Seems I remember Gore and Kerry followed the democrat mold too. I also remember during the election hearing about a poll from one of the big research outfits that people who identified themselves as democrats gave far less overall in dollars and even volunteer work than people ho identified themselves as republicans. That makes sense, though. Maybe Democrats don't give as much to charity because getting a tax deduction would take money away from the government. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I do not consider stating an opinion that I think someone is naive about a specific situation as "going after people personally", but I guess we dz.com'ers stroke our keyboards in moderated world. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum? Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways. It's called incentiving good deeds and it works pretty well....or did. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No, not condoms. Silly libs. Hey gun guys (and gals), I think it's time to gun up. I've decided not to be sorry wishing I had one should I ever find myself in that position. My issue is probably pretty common. I will be taking a CHL class and intend to carry in select situations. I don't know a lot about handguns, but I know I want a weapon with a good trade-off between comfort and concealment vs knock-down power, round capacity, and dependability. How 'bout some opinions on semi-autos that I might want to look at and why. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Help me out. What's the difference? Earmarks are inserted without debate, or relevance to the legislation. This was an omnibus spending bill, and there was considerable debate on what went in, particularly in the settling between the two houses, and to get the GOP votes in the Senate. Pork is any spending on stuff you don't have any stake in. Well if this hunk of shit bill was debated, where the hell were the pissed off representatives on TV talkin' about the nearly 9,000 earmarks for stupid shit in it. Oh wait, they were on Glenn Beck. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As I remember it, Bush didn't try to hide anything. He changed his mind given the circumstances and told the American people what he was doing. Cost him his re-election too. We can only hope it'll be the same this time around. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

http://www.business.gov/expand/government-contracting/green-purchasing.html Might wanna demand cash payment. Or better yet, gold. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Another good one: In his speech to Congress the other night, Obama said people making less than $250,000 a year under his plan "won't see their taxes go up by a dime. I repeat, not one single dime". Neil Cavuto just announced that his people found in the plan that under the tax changes, people will begin to lose certain deductions - like home mortgage interest, oddly enough - once they earn just $209,000. So I guess if you pay more taxes via a reduction in deductions, that's not a tax hike to Obama. Watch out. You guys bankin' $175K are next, followed by $150K, $90K........ Either this guy is the biggest moron that ever organized a community, or he's trying to pull a big-ass wool sweater over our eyes. At least the taxpayers eyes. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It's not hard to understand. You just won't accept the answer. The housing bubble is the primary cause of the current overall economic situation, and the housing bubble was caused by ludicrous decisions in Washington at the hands of Clinton, Dodd, Frank, and their buddies. This is all well established. You just keep looking for an answer you like. Irony score 10/10. Plenty of data has been presented (as opposed to opinion pieces which you present) and you refuse to accept. You have not presented a single item that proves that CRA, Dodds or Frank, fannie, or Freddie CAUSED the banks to behave in the irresponsible way that lead to the crisis. If any congressional action encouraged bad behavior by banks, look to Gramm (R), Leach(R) and Bliley(R). So you are completely discounting the New York Times article attached to the OP's post? How many more noteworthy news sources do you want that are simply reporting what is part of the public record? I'm sure there are others, I just don't wish to spend my time doing the research. You can easily find it too, if you care to see the other side of things. More importantly, none of the players involved have denied what they did. They just deny that it caused the problem. Not good enough? Hit youtube. There's plenty of taped proceedings with those in question saying exactly what I and others here say they said. Read what economists say too. Let that be your proof. It has the rest of us convinced. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Greenspan has even admitted his errors in thinking. I've not seen anybody from any angle dispute the source of the problem. Some on here sure have. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

When has it worked? Details. please. USA following the Great Depression and Japan in the 80's are 2 prime examples of governments injecting big money to create commerce to alleviate short term catastrophic pain. Remember, I didn't say it fixed things by completely eliminating all problems and pain; just that it is one option to reduce the level of short term pain. That reduction is paid for by having to endure lower levels of pain long term. There will be some pain no matter what. It is impossible to fool a contracting economy just by printing more money. While I can't comment on the Japan thing with no real knowledge of the specifics, I can tell you the injection of money during the great depression didn't do squat. The country remained in very bad shape for nearly 10 years until the war factories went up for WWII. Most economists looking back at it agree that it was the war - and not the spending - that pulled the nation out of the GD. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bill - how many tmes to I have to say the same thing? I'm NOT talking about the CRA. We're talking about the lowered standards of the 1990's and early 2000's through Freddie and Fannie. It's not the same thing. Look at the attached pdf document from the OP. THAT's what this thread is about. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So what happened to personal responsibility. Isn't that what, specially republicans and conservatives, matters? If VISA decides to lower their standards and raises my credit limit from the current $24,500 to $75,000 on my credit card. And I then go and spend it all, can I blame VISA for increasing my credit limit and blame them when I make stupid decisions? No argument, there. I have thought - and said, when asked - all along that the FIRST category of people to blame are those who bought homes they couldn't afford. The libs don't want to hear that, though. They insist on blaming "predatory lenders". Doesn't the same hold true for Fannie and Freddy. Yes, I agree that they lowered the lending standards (which I think was a big mistake). However, it was still the banks and mortgage brokers that decided to approve mortgages. Nobody forced banks and financial institutions to invest in ABCP or engage in default swaps. Those banks and brokers were encouraged to make the loans, often my means of ACORN protests outside their front doors (not that that matters to your point that they could've turned away those loans - and faced more of said protesting). More importantly, the banks and mortgage companies had no stake in the borrowers, because Fannie and Freddie ALSO decided to back any mortgage that failed! And all at the hands of the same guys I've mentioned numerous times, and all under the banner of "affordable housing". To me, this whole crisis proves that pure capitalism doesn't work. People will not make decisions based in their own self interest and forms of regulations and protections have to be in place. (Before people start screaming, I also don't believe that communism works, funny enough for the same reason.....greed) To me it proves - once again - that the government f*cks up everything it touches, with the exception of the military. The mantra that we should not stand in the way of companies making money is simply not valid. That is exactly what has lead to this recession. If you mean because of the housing bubble, I refer you to my original point that it was the dem lawmakers that forced moronically low lending standards upon the industry through Fannie and Freddie. If you mean something else, you'll need to explain. Companies making money did not cause the recession. Solely blaming Freddy and Fannie is like me blaming VISA for my credit card debt. It's silly. I didn't blame them at all. They were guided by laws. Laws written by Dodd an Frank, as encouraged by Clinton. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Geez, dude. Do you have to get irate?? What type of evidence do you want? I mean, at some point I'd have to put an entire research program together showing the house bills, how people voted on them, what changed - detail by detail - because of these new bills, etc. etc., and then you would probably just say that's not enough! When I say "well established" I mean the details have been widely published and never refuted, even by the very people the stories are about. Short of an all out thesis, I don't know what else to give you. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX