chuckakers

Yes I am, and I bet the list would have looked quite different, but the bill to us would have been just as high. It's looking more and more like a lot of this stimuloot package is made up of paybacks. In this case it's a dem pres and a dem majority in the house doing the paying, but I doubt anything would have been different under McCain except who would be getting the money. Great to meet you. Love the jumpsuit.

Change you can believe in. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I'm sure the guys at the DZ would have appreciated you getting her number. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

...you're not watching your government stick it up your ass. Here are just a "few" things in the economic Stimuloot bill. $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program $300 million for grants to combat violence against women $2 billion for federal child-care block grants $6 billion for university building projects $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24 $1 billion for community-development block grants $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” $650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations” $15 billion for business-loss carry-backs $145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits $83 billion for the earned income credit $150 million for the Smithsonian $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters $500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters $350 million for Agriculture Department computers $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids $450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”) $600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”) $1 billion for the Census Bureau $89 billion for Medicaid $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits $20 billion for food stamps $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers $850 million for Amtrak $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship $1.7 billion for the National Park System $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund $7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs” $150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases $150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish” $2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research) $2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois $6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program $3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants $3.4 billion for the State Energy Program $200 million for state and local electric-transport projects $300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments $1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries $1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees $8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects $4.5 billion for electricity grid $79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund You gotta be kiddin' me. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So the terrorists are allowed to put water in our troops noses and make them wear undies on their heads? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the band of libs that vote with them. They forced banks - via legislation and strong arming by their buddies at ACORN (which is supposed to be a get out the vote organization) - to make loans that people were not qualified for and wree destined to fail. The reason? Social justice, in their minds. Idiots. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My mom had a bad deterioration problem in her spine and that gizmo worked very well. That was 30 years ago, so I imagine whatever they have today is even better. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

But this environment is anything but typical. The banks were given large (fucking large) infusions of cash so that they would make the lending markets more liquid again, but aside from giving bonuses, they're all electing to hold onto all the cash for fear of failure. While that might be the intelligent choice for them, it doesn't seem like the intelligent choice for us if the purpose of the money is to move things along again. Quite the opposite, it suggests that bailout II should be geared toward increasing the demand side. The free market got us into this mess. Government manipulation of the free market is what got us into this mess. In this case it was called the Community Reinvestment Act. Pity the data does NOT support your claim. The default rate on CRA loans is low. The sum total of all CRA loans ever made is a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the mess. Nice scapegoat though. The CRA loans are only part of the equation. The bigger culprit was the lowering of lending standards, allowing people to buy with no down payment, bad credit, no income verification, etc. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Good start, my butt. President Obama didn't have to leave rendition in. He could have included killing it in the executive order without repercussion or even much of a mention in the press. After all, that's what everyone expected - based on his campaign promises. I suspect it's more likely a "quiet" decision spurred by some very eye opening security briefings. Reality sets in...and it ain't pretty. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

How about both of the above? And I agree that it's not part of this discussion, but you brought it up. California stats from the state - http://antonovich.co.la.ca.us/issues/illegalimmigration/index.html Texas stats from the state - http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/4health.html Looks like my figure of the state spending $600 million annually was wrong. It's $677 million. I didn't see the totals in the Texas report, so here are some news headlines using the stats (presumably accurate since they quote the state of Texas) http://www.statehousecall.org/illegal-immigrant-health-care http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/december-15-2008/illegal-immigrants-care-costs-texas-677-million.html http://bordercontrol.blogspot.com/2008/12/texas-spends-677-million-per-year-for.html http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3818 Sorry some of these links are to obviously anti-illegal immigrant websites, but I couldn't find the reference to the state of Texas report in the mainstream media using a google search. I guess they chose not to run the story. Hmmm. Your turn. You posted: >>>Have you decided to ignore that fact that CRA loans performed as well or better (on average) as loans not made under that program? I do suppose that fact gets in the way of a good theory. Interestingly, some of the best performing loans (on average) were made to recent immigrants, both legal and illegal.

The uberlibs must be going nut over this http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-renditions_31jan31,0,2998929.story and they are just getting started http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5751:aclu-asks-secretary-of-state-clinton-to-clarify-us-policy-on-exposing-torture-and-rendition-&catid=88888933&Itemid=88889535 Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Tell me what part of my conversation needs substantiation and I'll gladly provide it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

And how much are they contributing in the form of sales taxes and income taxes they don't file to get back? That number by itself could be real or bullshit, but it sounds very good. In both cases, the number comes from the state's own accounting office. And you're right, those numbers don't include sales taxes paid, or income/social security taxes paid while committing a felony offense by using someone elses social security number. Oops. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

ding, ding. We have a winner. If you'd ever lived in a truly socialist nation, you wouldn't say that. Neveretheless, capitalist greed led to this mess, so maybe a little control will indeed be a winner. Capitalist greed is balanced by competition and the free market. Government manipulation of the capitalist system led to this mess, and the current lunacy called a bailout will make things much worse. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

ding, ding. We have a winner. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Read carefully: >>>How about the 4 banks out of the big 9 that said they didn't need the money, and the 2 of those 4 that tried to turn it down altogether until a closed door conversation with GW? It sure sounds like they were forced to go along. There's a lot more to the bank bailout story than we're privy to. Not sure what it is, but it smells bad.

How about the 4 banks out of the big 9 that said they didn't need the money, and the 2 of those 4 that tried to turn it down altogether until a closed door conversation with GW? It sure sounds like they were forced to go along. There's a lot more to the bank bailout story than we're privy to. Not sure what it is, but it smells bad. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not that it's part of this thread, but since you mention it: California just reported that in Los Angeles County alone, illegal immigrants are costing the county $1 billion dollars a year in welfare programs, medical care, etc. That number doesn't even include education costs. Texas just reported that statewide, the cost of medical care given to illegal immigrants sucks 10% of the entire state budget annually. Imagine that - just medical care for illegals knocking $600 million right out the states already very squeezed budget. And with a tightening economy and massive layoffs, how much you wanna bet there are Americans that will take the jobs Americans just won't take. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I guess that makes the situation easier for you, but it's horseshit. The CRA forced banks to issue loans to people who would not have come even close to qualifying for one (and couldn't afford the one they got). The government mandated lending standards so lax, that in many cases buyers didn't even have to prove (hell, or even report) how much money they made - how idiotic is that? Adding insult to that, the government lowered the standards further and redued down payment requirements, in some cases to ZERO. All this in turn created an artificial market for housing, which resulted in a massive housing expansion across the country that we now know was a bubble. Banks were glad to write these shit loans because Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac (which IS you and me) backed them - by law. And since many of these unqualified buyers paid little or no own payment, a bunch of them simply walked away when they couldn't make the payment. At the end of the day, Fannie and Freddie (you and me) got stuck with the resulting mess. That's government manipulation of the market, and as usual, it backfired. The foundation of the economic problem we're in today is the housing mess, compliments of Jimmy Carter, and later Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, among others. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

But this environment is anything but typical. The banks were given large (fucking large) infusions of cash so that they would make the lending markets more liquid again, but aside from giving bonuses, they're all electing to hold onto all the cash for fear of failure. While that might be the intelligent choice for them, it doesn't seem like the intelligent choice for us if the purpose of the money is to move things along again. Quite the opposite, it suggests that bailout II should be geared toward increasing the demand side. The free market got us into this mess. Government manipulation of the free market is what got us into this mess. In this case it was called the Community Reinvestment Act. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You reply is a bit simplistic and implies that businesses are at the mercy of the existing market. This is not the case. Markets exist because of demand, but demand is often the creation of business. In fact, some of the most profitable and successful businesses on the planet got that way by creating a market for their products, rather than filling an existing need. Companies seek growth, whether by selling more widgets (increased sales of your basic widget. The kind of growth you mentioned is tough without increased demand), different widgets (growth through diversification by selling widgets that do other widgey things), and improved widgets (growth through selling widgets that are more efficient at whatever they widge). And the one you won't want to hear - growth through increased market share. That's growth by taking business from the other widget makers. Unlike in public school system, there is no trophy in business for "participation". Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I don't disagree. Working both sides of the equation is easily accomplished by giving tax cuts to individuals too. But handing out money to people who don't pay taxes (which is the post I was originally replying to) will only create an artificial and temporary market for said goods, and that won't create long term stimulus OR economic confidence. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

yep. Cool! So do I. Now that we've established that I wanted to point out that the reasoning behind giving money to people with no money is a sure fire way to inject that money back into the economy immediately. At least that's the theory. I don't know how much actual local stimulus it would create if those checks were spent at WalMart. A theory, yes, but simply giving money to people doesn't create an ongoing stimulus to the overall economy. There would of course be a one-time bump in things, but once the money is spent, things would eventually return to the way they were before the money was handed out. The best way to create an ongoing stimulus is to cut taxes on businesses. I know that ruffles the feathers of the libs who think all businesses are bad and that if you let them keep more of their profits, the executives will just take more exotic vacations, but the story runs deeper than that. When businesses have more money, the typical response of management is to use it to grow the business. That's how they stay competitive (as in grow or die). This leads to the hiring of more employees and the spending of more money to expand facilities, buy more product, etc. A multiplying effect is then in place. As businesses spend more money, the businesses they buy things from begin to see more cash coming their way, and they will likely use that cash to grow as well. The new employees have money to spend, which they will do at businesses that sell the goods and services they want and/or need. Those businesses then have more money, which they use to expand. When they expand, they need more employees, more product, bigger facilities, etc., and the cycle continues. Will some of that "new money" be used to treat execs to vaca's or remodel office suites? Sure it will, but why should anyone care? It's the free market doing what it does best. If someone gets a treat for being successful, so be it. All I care about is that the business is doing well, which allows employees to make a living wage and spend more, making the positive effects of the tax cuts to multiply. Tax cuts work because they create an incentive that builds on itself. Giving people who don't pay taxes money to spend is like giving someone a fish instead of a fishing pole. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Oh Bill, you're such a tease. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If you'd like to point out where you see bigotry in me, I'll gladly discuss it with you. In my life, I prefer to see goodness in all people until and unless they show me why I shouldn't. I was taught as a child and still believe today that there is no room in my heart for hatred. Don't get me wrong - I do call 'em as I see 'em. I just don't see 'em negatively until they show me. I sleep better that way. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX