chuckakers

"Forget the politics" was figurative. Check the bios, lib. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3486841;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There are couple folks on the list that I would agree with you on, but some of the most intelligent statements came from these people, and their resume's speak for themselves. I have yet to hear ANY names of the "leading economists" Obama claims to have consulted that say this stimuloot package is "the right plan". Not ONE! Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Ph.D. teaches both economics and history, and before joining the SJSU economics faculty in the fall of 2002, lectured as an adjunct at Golden Gate University and Santa Clara University. was a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, for the 2001-2002 academic year. Robert Higgs received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation. Deirdre N. McCloskey economics professor. job title at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication. She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics at UIC, and was for five years the Tinbergen Distinguished Professor of Economics, Philosophy, History, English, and Arts and Culture, at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Since October 2007 she has received two honorary doctorates. Allan H. Meltzer economist and professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. author of dozens of academic papers and books on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank, and is considered one of the world's foremost experts on the development and applications of monetary policy Jeffrey A. Miron Professor of Economics at Harvard University. He received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Swarthmore College and Ph.D. in economics from M.I.T. Research Fellow for the National Bureau of Economic Research; Associate Professor of Economics, University of Michigan; Associate Editor, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking; President, Bastiat Institute; Visiting Scholar, Institut d’Economie Industrielle, Université des Sciences Sociales; Professor of Economics, Boston University; and Visiting Professor of Economics, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1992-1998, he was chairman of the Department of Economics at Boston University. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It appears that the only response Amazon has to concerns voiced by those who have different opinions is that they are whining. If that's all ya got, yer in the wrong room. I am really enjoying all the right flingers around here with this massive gnashing of teeth and flagelation about things that have not even been signed into law.. their crystal balls must be flashing madly "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" "ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" Actually it's the libs that are making that claim. All we've heard since B.O. started talking about handing out money is the "catastrophic affect" not passing the stimulus bill will have. The LIBS are the doom and gloomers here. Just listen to their comments. Pelosi, Reid, and the whole bunch can't open their mouths without reminding the American people how horrible our world will be without this peice-of-shit payback package getting done. You need to get your doomsday messengers right. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sure sounds like the folks that really understand this stuff aren't very fond of B.O.'s plan. Wonder how much of this kind of proof we'll have to look up before the libs finally admit the whole thing is little more than a political payback. The Reason.com Stimulus Symposium Leading economists sound off on the $800 billion stimulus package February 11, 2009 Yesterday, the United States Senate passed a sweeping $800 billion stimulus plan that President Barack Obama says he would like to sign into law as soon as possible. “There is no disagreement,” Obama has declared, “that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help jump-start the economy.” Reason.com asked a panel of leading economists for their response to the stimulus package. Robert Higgs 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? This legislation entails the addition of a huge increment to the burden of debt the public must bear, directly or indirectly. It redirects resources on a grand scale from uses consumers value to uses politicians value and thereby impoverishes the general public. I've written along these lines at greater length here and here. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? All of it works. The trouble is what it works for, which is to reward virtually every special interest allied with the Democrats and to guarantee the recipients' future support for the pirates who are now sending the booty their way. It is eerily similar to the New Dealers' use of the Works Progress Administration and other big relief programs to buy votes and bulk up their political machine. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? For the economy in general, doing nothing is vastly preferable to doing the stimulus package, but doing nothing is not a political option; indeed, it would be political suicide. Which shows that only by adopting economically destructive policies can politicians survive. Do you see something wrong in this picture? Given the dominant ideology and the political institutions that now exist, economically rational public policy is incompatible with political viability. See here. Having hit bottom, the politicians can only do one thing: keep digging. If Hell is down there, they'll reach it, sooner or later. Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for The Independent Institute and editor of the Institute's quarterly journal The Independent Review. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? The biggest problem with the stimulus package is the amount by which it increases total government spending, the national debt, and therefore future taxes. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? If by "work," you mean alleviate the depression, there is nothing in the stimulus that will do so. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? Not at all. The best thing the government could do is to cut spending and taxes. Doing nothing is a second-best option. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel is associate professor of economics at San Jose State University and the author of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War. Megan McArdle 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? Even if you accept the theory of the stimulus, the package is not well-structured. A good stimulus package should be designed to move money out the door rapidly, then stop. This program is designed to move money out the door slowly, and keep going. Moreover, the vast size of the package is going to add big costs in the not-so-distant future which have barely been discussed. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? Expanding unemployment benefits and food stamps—the "automatic fiscal stabilizers"—are relatively low cost and transparent. They target money to the people whose consumption is contracting the most, and they will naturally shrink as the economy recovers. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? I would like to see more proof of the statement that doing something is better than doing nothing. The Keynesian arguments upon which Obama's statements are based work out neatly in the textbooks, but there's little proof that they actually make things better, in aggregate, in the real world. And the current situation is all the proof you need that there are massive holes in our old textbook models. Megan McArdle writes about economics, business, and politics at The Atlantic. Deirdre McCloskey 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? It's not targeted, not temporary, not timely. Especially the last. Too slow, too slow, alas. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? At less than full employment the Keynesian stuff works. So the minority of the quickie expenditures will "put people back to work"—until we return to almost-full employment, which will happen pretty quickly in the recovery. At that point the stimulus will merely crowd out private investment. In the short run people might get more cheerful, too, always a good thing. But in two years the recession will be over. And the myth will grow up—rather similar to the ones about FDR and war expenditure—that Obama did it. Essentially, Obama will get credit for the self-adjusting character of the economy. I reckon we should start preparing that other face of Mount Rushmore. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? I agree on the money and banking side, not on the real expenditure side. We are in a financial panic, which happens only in a few recessions (1907, 1929). In other words, the TARP is way, way more important than the stimulus. Truly, Something Must Be Done about the banks. That's a logic of second best—the government fouled up the banking system (the most regulated part of the economy), so maybe the government should help clean up the mess. Someone needs to, and I reckon it's not going to be the Icelandic government. J.P. Morgan, where are you when we need you? Contributing Editor Deirdre McCloskey teaches economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her latest book is The Myth of Statistical Significance. Allan H. Meltzer 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? No thought is given to the medium and longer-term consequences. We are very likely to have large inflation in the next few years. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? Yes, extending unemployment compensation, tax subsidy to homebuyers, some of the permanent tax cuts. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? Yes. But doing the right things is the option. Allan H. Meltzer is the Allan H. Meltzer University Professor of political economy and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Jeffrey A. Miron 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? The package is focused on increased spending and tax cuts that fail to improve incentives. I am extremely skeptical that the U.S. has $500 billion in additional productive spending, especially if done in a hurry. In most areas government spending is too high, not too low. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? Roughly, no. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? Doing nothing is always an option, and in my view it would be better than the stimulus. Better yet, we should fix those aspects of current policy that ought to be fixed independent of the crisis. See here and here. Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. Michael C. Munger 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? The creation of new bureaucratic and regulatory structures, restrictions on creation of liquidity. The genius of the American system, for all its flaws, has been that we can mobilize lots of liquidity quickly. Silicon Valley exists because you could sit down, make a pitch, and get $10 million that afternoon. If we start governing finance like we govern universities, or city councils, we are going to lose that. Having committees, and a bunch of forms to sign off on, and stamps...Hernando de Soto wrote about systems like this. They strangle business, investment, and growth. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? Keynes said that Y=C+I+G. Borrowing money to raise "G" (government spending) will work, I suppose. But the cost to future generations is enormous. I am amazed by the hypocrisy of both sides. John McCain calls the stimulus "intergenerational theft." Well, he's right, but he came late to this wisdom. The Republicans have been just pouring out new deficit spending since 2002. And then Obama says he doesn't want to do tired old ideas, and failed economics. But he is doing exactly what the Republicans did: huge deficit-financed spending on largely useless or irrelevant programs designed to reward political friends. The only thing that's different is the identity of the "friends." So, some of the spending may increase measured GDP slightly for 2009. But the price is increased inflationary pressures in 2010, and the squandering of the birthright of our children for decades. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? This makes me furious. Doing nothing is not an option—anymore. Because first President Bush, and now President Obama, have engaged in a completely irresponsible fear campaign. "We must do something, or you should cower in helpless fear, behind locked doors, in darkened rooms!" Presidents should not use this kind of fear as a weapon to pass their pet projects. Roosevelt, for all his flaws, got it right: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Well, not quite right: it turns out we need to fear fear itself, and also President Obama. The sensible thing to do at this point would be to make an offer, at 40 cents on the dollar, for the "toxic" assets, both the collaterlized debt obligations packaged by Freddy and Fannie, and also the credit default swap "insurance" derivatives sold by AIG (and some other firms, but mostly AIG). Since AIG wrote so many "naked" CDSs, even for people who don't own the underlying, or "insured" asset, they are going to keep hemorrhaging until someone puts a floor on the value of the assets. So, a one-time, take it or leave it, offer. One big reason that credit markets are frozen is the uncertainty created by Treasury indecision and vagueness. Asset owners are holding out for a better price, and they are trying to negotiate through the Senate, not the Treasury. Obama needs to lead here, and say, "Take this partial buyout, or hang on to the asset at your peril. There is no better deal coming tomorrow." Michael C. Munger is professor of economics and chair of the department of political science at Duke University. William A. Niskanen 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? Nothing in the package increases the incentive to work, save, invest, or increase productivity. Any spending stimulus should be limited to increasing the demand for housing, in order to increase the value of the mortgage-backed securities that are limiting the ability of the banks to lend. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? No. Almost all of the tax cuts are welfare payments channeled through the tax system, not reductions in marginal rates. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? No fiscal stimulus program is a viable option. Use monetary policy to stimulate demand. Consider an optional fiscal stimulus plan consisting only of selective marginal tax rate cuts and a temporary subsidy to increase the demand for housing. William A. Niskanen is chairman emeritus and a distinguished senior economist at the Cato Institute. Johan Norberg 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? The biggest problem is that it destroys savings by using them on projects that the majority did not think were reasonable a year ago. We take capital that would have been available to companies and poorer countries and use it to create a stimulus that will have its largest impact after the economy has already turned the corner—so that it will contribute to another round of boom and bust. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? That depends on what the meaning of "works" is. The tax credit will work. Not as they intended it, though. But it gives people more money, which they will save because they can see that the government is building up a huge deficit that they will be forced to pay for in the future. And then those savings will come in handy. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? No. Every single crisis in the last 100 years shows that doing nothing would have been preferable to doing bad things. But he is right that it is not an option in the current political climate. Now what applies is the politicians' logic from Yes, Prime Minister: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done." Johan Norberg is a Swedish author and historian of ideas, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is currently writing a book on the financial crisis. Mark Perry 1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package? There are many problems with the stimulus package, but there are several that stand out. First, like all fiscal stimulus packages in the past, the current one will not impact the economy at the right time for the intended stimulus effect, due to the inevitable problems of long lags. Much of the intended expansionary fiscal effects won't happen until next year and even 2011, and it's likely the economy will have recovered sufficiently by then so that the fiscal stimulus will be unnecessary, and might actually be destabilizing. Second, the fiscal stimulus has to be paid for eventually in the form of higher taxes, which will have a negative economic effect in the future, i.e. the "fiscal child abuse" effect. That is, any positive short-term effects of this stimulus package will be more than offset by future negative effects in the form of reduced future economic growth, decreased investments, and lower incomes. 2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what? The fiscal stimulus will work only in the sense that it will serve to stimulate the approval ratings of the President and other politicians. 3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that? No. The market economy has an underappreciated, but amazing ability to correct and reverse economic imbalances and problems on its own, and that economic self-correcting resiliency works best in the absence of government interference. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It appears that the only response Amazon has to concerns voiced by those who have different opinions is that they are whining. If that's all ya got, yer in the wrong room. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Or the $30 million that's going to some organization in California to watch over the endangered Marsh Mouse. Do the little f*ckers just eat Caviar? Obama is a JOKE. I just hope we have a country left after he gets done. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

the CRA did NOT cause the housing crisis. Another myth from the right wing blogosphere that has been debunked completely (by the Federal Reserve Bank, no less) but it still comes back over and over again. I'm not talking about the CRA. There were laws passed well after the CRA that I'm talking about. My wife is in the mortgage business and watched it all go down. Congress passed laws dramatically lowering lending standards, including such idiotic crap as no down payments, loans for more than 100% of the value of a home, and even allowing people to get "no doc" loans, for which the borrower didn't even have to provide proof of income. How f*cking stupid is that? The people that bought homes under these standards often lied about income because they could, then bailed out when times got tough because they had no down payment to loose - no skin in the game. And, since Fannie and Freddie were the eventual backers of these loans, the taxpayers are the ones that got stuck with the end result. I say kick them all the f*ck out. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Nice attempt at being totally clueless. I lived in Oregon... and voted for a death with Dignity initiative.. IT took years to actually get it implimented with the rePUBICan Religious White House leading the fight against it. I voted for a similar law here in Washington just this last year. I for one do not want to have to live in agony, and impoverish my family because some fucked up morons in the church down the street.. do not really believe in an afterlife.. and are scared to DEATH and of DEATH. Nor do I want a bunch of blood sucking doctors keeping me alive to enrich themselves at my family's expence.... When its my time to go I want the right.. to exit as I see fit. Its my life.. and you dont have the right to stop me.... no matter what your scewed vision of life is.. I guess your milage does vary.. so go ahead and be afraid ... be VERY afraid.. of that end of life that ll of us will have to face. I on the other hand will know when its time If you think I'm clueless, you aren't going deep enough with your otherwise excellent point. Obama's bill doesn't allow old people to die with dignity, it mandates dieing, dignity or not. I am in total agreement with your views on dieing with dignity. I'm the person that had to sign papers allowing my own father to pass in a hospice - where that's actually the point of checking in. Don't go down that road. My point isn't whether or not we should want to stay alive, it's that our government shouldn't be able to mandate it through the legislative process. Live, die, that's everyone's individual choice. Which is why I think the government should NOT have a say. Individual rights. Either way, please. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton. Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better . Wendy W. She takes the hook. You are quite correct. While we face the highest debt to GDP numbers ever, Obama wants a stimulus package that will add over 10% to the country's insane debt....and he's been in office less than a month. Can't wait to see what he spends next month. Yes, it sucks that he inherited an economy in the shitter thanks to Reagan/Bush policies. Cleaning up a mess is never pretty, but it has to be done. No one denies that the housing market bubble is the biggest cause of our current economic situation. There's also no argument that the housing market bubble was caused from the government lowering lending standards, which in turn created an artificial demand filled by what should have been unqualified buyers. Sealing the deal, the government mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (owned by you and me, a.k.a. the taxpayer) back these loans that were destined to fail (also known as the empty houses down the street). Did I mention it was the democratically controlled congress that passed the laws lowering those standards under the guise of creating "affordable housing" for all? Did I mention that the Bush administration went to Congress at least twice to ask them to change these standards before it sank us? And I guess I didn't mention that the democratically controlled Congress turned him away. Barney Frank - the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee - repeatedly spoke out on the house floor that Freddie and Fannie were in great shape and at no risk of having financial problems. Wendy, I love ya, but this economic thing is clearly tied in the biggest way to the housing market, and that aspect of it can't be blamed on Bush. He may have done a lot of things you don't like, but his administration argued against the house of cards that was - and is - the housing market. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I don't disagree with your perspective - in many ways we agree completely. However, what the economy needs right now is confidence, and that doesn't come from government work programs and willy nilly spending for the sake of throwing money around to the groups that helped get a candidate into office. It comes from creating an economic environment in which businesses go into an expansion and reinvestment mode. When jobs are plentiful (as is the case when businesses are expanding and reinvesting), people have the confidence to spend ("Boss gonna fire me? So what, the guy down the street is hiring. Now let's go buy that ski boat we've been wanting"). We saw that in the last run up, but it was way over the top. Too much confidence if you will, combined with rediculously loose lending standards across the spectrum. But back on point, we are a nation of consumers funded by the hard work of individuals. When the perception is that jobs are drying up, Americans go into a lock-down mode with their money, and the overall economy begins a nosedive that becomes self-inflicting. And since 70% of our overall economy is consumer spending, it's pretty easy to see what needs done. Create incentives that will allow businesses to move toward expansion mode - also known as hiring mode. And whether the socialist, anti-business left likes it or not, the best way to get businesses in that mode is through... drum roll please..... tax cuts. If we're going to say to hell with addressing the debt level and deficit spending, let's at least do what works in the process. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Oooooooh Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton. Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better . Wendy W. She takes the hook. You are quite correct. While we face the highest debt to GDP numbers ever, Obama wants a stimulus package that will add over 10% to the country's insane debt....and he's been in office less than a month. Can't wait to see what he spends next month. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Why didn't I think of that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fa41HOJ_iI Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

OK, sort of. The Vermont Teddy Bear Company is running a spot for V-day that takes place in an office setting. Check out the RW shots on the wall in one guys cubicle. Do we all notice that stuff? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Packing weight. She'd be very useful and wouldn't eat up your jump money. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My wife and I had the pleasure of taking both of our kids on AFF 1 and other jumps along the way. I now enjoy it immensely when manifest assigns me to video my son when he does AFF - as an Instructor. Too cool. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

He really does keep his enemies closer. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Oh.. you mean when we actually PAID most of our own debts??? Federal Deficit under Carter... only 1 TRILLION.. Now after you guys have had your way with VOO DOO DOO Economics... 11 Trillion. Compare those two figures relative to the GDP of the day. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Obama's stimuloot bill has a medical provision that will kill elderly people whose only crime is living too long too. So what's yer point? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Once again, conservatives are called whiners when an opinion is issued. The left can't stand it when someone disagrees with the Messiah, but since they don't have an intelligent response, they have to resort to name calling. It's cute, but not very admirable. Get it through your heads, libs. We're not whining. We are educating people to the lunacy at hand. And the more they learn, so madder they get - even some of the libs! It's gonna be a long 4 years for conservatives....and an even longer 4 years for the left. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Step 1: Diet Step 2: road trip to a wind tunnel Step 3: long diver on a 20-way

This thread diserved the same response I've made on several others on the issue of the new President. Those who voted for Mr. Obama are learning what hey voted for. He promised the world and his voters want what they thought was coming. Oops. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The libs are discovering what they voted for...one f*cked up communist move at a time. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes, there is a substantial difference in the pull force between F-111 and ZP fabric. A ZP pilot chute will also last a lot longer. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

"No Dr. Camrade. Dis man ees to olt to haff a knee replacement. Zat costs 60 soussant dollars, unt dis man vill be dead in just a few years. Save zat false knee for a younger person." If you still can't see what's happening here, you deserve what you get. Heil Barrack!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX