chuckakers

So not enough mutual respect to read and respond to her posts, but enough that where she jumps is important? Just say, "I was talking out of my ass", and get on with it. .jim I don't need "mutual respect" to be curious where someone jumps. But thanks for chiming in unnecessarily. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. What point? Confident assertions that are inaccurate? That's making a point? It's not about what I think or don't think. You are the only one trying to make it personal or about me (hence inquiry w/r/t flirting). It's about the inaccuracy of your assertions. Which countries receive foreign aid? What is the form that foreign aid takes? How much foreign aid do we actually budget? That's pretty basic. Technology enables an amazing amount of information. Technology has made accessing that information fabulously easy. At some point, it either becomes an issue of personal responsibility or stubborness in wanting to believe false concepts when folks won't even take advantage of something made as simple for them to access to find out the information, especially as easy as I did above. Okay, you keep shifting away from topical discussion & avoiding responding topically, so one had to start wondering. /Marg OK, so have you not noticed yet that I'm not really reading your replies? I do still wonder where you jump, though. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? /Marg No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. As for flirting with you? No thanks. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. /Marg I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump?

I don't see how he could move lower... almost all the rest of them below him got shot in office.. having done nothing....George did a lot... you have to give him that.... he did slots of things...most of them the wrong things..for all the wrong reasons... Especially the immigration goatfuck. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bill - the forum doesn't need the attitude, and you really don't give people that don't share your view - me in this case - any credit at all. Not sure why your first instinct is to polarize, but it's not necessary. I think we will get more out of it by discussing the issue rather than discussing the people discussing the issue. Back on point, I don't care who proposes tax cuts. Tax cuts work. That's all I need to know. There's so much more going on with this whole stimulus stuff than meets the eye that it's sickening. The government - both sides - have been and are sticking up our asses, and the current administration is no different. Mr. Obama is just doing it on steroids and disguised as a stimulus package. This plan will bury this country. Hell, even Vladimir Putin has come out warning Obama to steer another direction or risk repeating the history of the Soviet Union post WWII. Think about that. China has issued a similar statement. Think about that. Cut taxes and get out of the way of hard working Americans and American businesses. That is the most sure-fire way to put the economy back on track. That will get my support no matter who gets it done. Simply add to that a decrease or illumination in spending to the illegal aliens and get the country back to a mind set that you have to WORK to make a living and the problems with deficit and budget dwindle considerably. And pulling some of the insane amounts of cash we send to other countries (much of which gets intercepted by the very leaders that starve the people we seek to help) could sure help out in or situation. Turtle my man, the world is upside down. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Actually you didn't say I didn't support the cuts in the stimuloot package, you asked me if I did. I just provided an explanation with my answer. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So this lady was sending money to a person she never met? God she is stupid! She got what she deserves. Dumb ass There's a really good Canadian women joke in there, but I'll be nice. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Given the idealogical differences between me and the administration, I'll take what I can get. But overall, I don't think it means much. There are "tax cuts" in the form of welfare, which I disagree with on its face. We can debate whether giving people who don't pay taxes a check is stimulus or not, but it's apauling that it's being called a tax cut. That's just dishonest. From what I have read, the "average" American taxpayer will see an 8 to 13 dollar weekly difference in their paychecks. Not exactly stimulative. Only 1/3 of 1% of the cuts go to the small business sector. That doesn't make any sense when you consider small businesses employ a whopping 70% of all American workers. Selective tax cuts - however well meaning - disrupt the free market system, which always results in an induced imbalance that requires more manipulation. Across the board tax cuts stimulate the free market system without altering its natural tendency to seek balance between cost and value, and supply and demand. Tax cuts yes, but across the board. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bill - the forum doesn't need the attitude, and you really don't give people that don't share your view - me in this case - any credit at all. Not sure why your first instinct is to polarize, but it's not necessary. I think we will get more out of it by discussing the issue rather than discussing the people discussing the issue. Back on point, I don't care who proposes tax cuts. Tax cuts work. That's all I need to know. There's so much more going on with this whole stimulus stuff than meets the eye that it's sickening. The government - both sides - have been and are sticking up our asses, and the current administration is no different. Mr. Obama is just doing it on steroids and disguised as a stimulus package. This plan will bury this country. Hell, even Vladimir Putin has come out warning Obama to steer another direction or risk repeating the history of the Soviet Union post WWII. Think about that. China has issued a similar statement. Think about that. Cut taxes and get out of the way of hard working Americans and American businesses. That is the most sure-fire way to put the economy back on track. That will get my support no matter who gets it done. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Even CNBC is allowing a bit of thruth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Permanent tax cuts across the board for businesses and individuals would do just that. Companies re-invest and expand when they have more capital, and consumers spend when they are confident they will be able to keep their jobs. Where does that confidence come from? It comes from knowing businesses are expanding, assuring demand for labor and the potential for upward mobility. Unfortunately, the current bunch controlling the laws of the country aren't in the business of fixing anything. What is happening right now is an effort to massively shift the social make-up of the nation. A shift to socialism, that is. Taking from the most productive to give to the lazy. If you're looking for a market play, go with companies that will be contracted for all the infrastructure stuff, green companies that are getting chunks of the stimuloot package - and a bunch of gold for when the dollar collapses. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Of course you do. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You might try this link as a starting point for info http://www.jagworksdesign.com/html/Para%20skydive%20manual.htm Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I lost count. Do you know the exact number of foreigners who have access to health care in their own countries that come to the US to receive care instead? Somehow I doubt it. The point is, using such examples to support your assertion is ludicrous, because the medical "tourism" goes both ways. If you want to try to support your claim, you'll have to use real evidence. There is one major difference between people who come to the U.S. for treatment vs Americans that go elsewhere. Americans travel for treatment because procedures are cheaper abroad. People come to America for procedures because it's far superior than what they have available in their home countries. By the way, you didn't lose count. You never knew. Not that it matters. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Did I mention I love living here? Due to the popularity of the "Survivor" shows, Texas is planning to do one entitled, "Survivor," Texas-Style. The contestants will all start in Dallas, then drive to Waco, Austin, San Antonio, over to Houston and down to Brownsville. They will then proceed up to Del Rio, El Paso, Midland, Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo. From there they will go on to Abilene, Fort Worth and finally back to Dallas. Each will be driving a pink Volvo with bumper stickers that read: "I Love the Dixie Chicks," "Boycott Beef," "I Voted for Obama," "George Strait Sucks," "Hillary in 2012" and "I'm here to confiscate your guns." The first one to make it back to Dallas alive wins. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not at all. Research simply indicates that US healthcare isn't that great compared to the rest of the developed world. Denying that our health care system is broken isn't going to help matters. So, why is it that so many Americans go abroad for health care? Is it also because "the quality of care sucks in their country"? If we are to have an intelligent conversation on the issue, you'll have to let me know what "so many Americans" are. Is that a million people a year going out of country, or 1,000? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

HEY.. STOP IT Just who the fuck do you think you are.. bringing facts to support blowing the shit out of another sacred right wing phallacy Nice try, but....http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3490356;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The high cost of medical care in the U.S. is driven largely by our screwy third party payer system and the huge hole left in hospitals pocketbooks from treating people who can't or don't pay their tab. You know, the people the libs say can't get health care. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I have no doubt that the very best care available in the US is comparable to the very best care available in any country. However, if we only look at the quality of the best care the US has to offer, and the wealthy recipients of that care, we get no useful information about the average care that the average recipient receives, which is far more useful information. You're reaching. I've also been in hospitals and medical facilities in poor small towns and in the heart of urban areas. From what I've seen, the quality of care is pretty similar across the board, without respect to who's walking in the door. Sure the super-facilities have technologies that smaller one don't, but that's to be expected. It makes no sense to have some zillion dollar gizmo and world-class whateverologist at a facility that only treats a small population or in a tiny urban clinic. People who need more care than is available are simply and routinely referred to places that do. People come to our state-of-the-art medical centers because the quality of care sucks in their country, not ours. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

About time. And at the expense of how many trees and how much CO2 spewed into the air to produce, transport, and dispose of that dead tree waste called bulk mailing? Try this: Fascinating way you have of admitting that you were WRONG. Have you been taking lessons from mnealtx? You cited one year of results. Look at history. Even in the article you cite the author stresses that the Postal Service "managed" to post a net profit. Nice jab at mnealtx, though. That's really becoming - or at least revealing - of you. If you bothered to do just a tiny teeny bit of research you would find that the USPS has averaged over $1Billion/yr in profits over the past 10 years. 2008, the year Bill cited, was actually down because of the economy, 2008 was down because the USPS had to Pre-Pay $5 Billion in Retirement Benefits: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5870048&page=1 Here's your tiny teeny bit of research, which can be found at http://www.usps.com/financials/ar/welcome.htm and looks like this: Net Income (in millions) 2008 - (2,806) 2007 - (5,142) 2006 - 900 2005 - 1,445 2004 - 3,065 2003 - 3,868 2002 - (676) 2001 - (1,680) 2000 - (199) 1999 - (447) 1998 - (810) 1998 - (1360) Net total (3842) / 12 years = (320.1666) annually. That's a $3,201,666 average annual LOSS over the past 12 years (as far back as the USPS website reports) Double and a too. As I said, as a business model, the USPS sucks. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Just douse the address area with lighter fluid before lighting. That should do the trick. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not much of a pilot if he didn't FAR105 before conducting parachuting ops. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's what a google search looked like. Then they were illegal jumps. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Would you prefer that postal workers read your mail before delivering it, and deciding for you what is important and what is not? I'm pretty sure that it's capitalism that encourages companies to advertise to potential customers. Are you suggesting that we eliminate capitalism so you won't be inconvenienced when you check your mail? Agreed. What do you suggest should be done about the problem? Should we ban hard copy advertisement? I suspect that would only serve to increase email based spam and telemarketing. It might even cause television networks to cram 40 minutes of programming into each hour instead of 44. Should we just make it illegal to use the USPS for advertising? I suspect that would lead to more flyers on my windshield and front door. I don't suggest do we anything, except stop subsidizing the USPS. I could care less if they double the amount of crap in the system, beyond the inconvenience of having to fill my trash with it. That aspect is indeed free market capitalism at work. I was just pointing out the irony in the situation. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX