chuckakers

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

No need to get testy with me. I just pointed out your intolerance and bigotry - I didn't cause it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

A couple points on that, Wendy. First, Mr. Geithner worked for the World Monetary Fund (WMF) during the time he failed to pay his taxes. The WMF was very detailed in its instructions to employees about the fact that taxes were not taken out of their paychecks. In fact, every quarter, the WMF would issue instructions to all employees (along with the appropriate IRS forms), explaining that the employee had to pay taxes out of their own pockets, and even calculated the tax for them! Additionally, each employee had to submit a form on a quarterly basis, showing how much they actually paid out of their pockets for said taxes, and the WMF would actually reimburse them that amount!! So Mr. Geithner not only failed to pay his taxes after being informed that he was required to do so, he also got reimbursed for taxes he DID NOT PAY!! So either Mr. Geithner is lying through his teeth, or he is an absolute moron. Either way, is that the guy you want in charge of the IRS??? Geithner, Daschle, Killefer. Change you can believe in. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You seem to forget something.. THAT Democratic Party is long gone.. and most of those Southern Bigots are now staunch Ultra Right Wing Bible Thumping Republicans since they left the Democratic Party in DROVES after President Johnson(D-Texas) butt hurt them so badly in the 60's. Not exactly. The "southern bigots" you refer to come in all political persuasions. I ran a DZ on a city-owned airport in Wharton, Texas (a rural southern city of 15 or 20,000 people), and met most all of the city officials from the board, the fire dept, police, etc, as well as many people from the community. I can tell you that there was no pattern to who was a bigot and what party they were associated with. You are also wrong about "bible thumpers". In my experience, the more religious the person (at least here in Texas) the less prejudiced and more tolerant they are. Once again, we see the left attempt to win the argument with crap that simply isn't true. Bigots come in all stripes, my friend. And I love your statement most of those Southern Bigots are now staunch Ultra Right Wing Bible Thumping Republicans? Funny how the bigots never see it in themselves. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So, do you agree that negative tax rates for corporations are equally socialist in nature? yep. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

They do? I thought the current administration's plan was to reduce taxes for people making less than $200k You're right, but you forgot something. He also wants to give tax credits to people who don't even pay taxes!! So if you pay taxes, he plans to take money from you to give it to people who already don't pay any. That, by any definition, is socialism. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The following facts should answer your question quite nicely since the vast majority of republicans have historically been conservative, while the majority of deomcrats have historically been liberal (a term you avoid by calling liberals "progressive"). Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote. By invoking the foundation of the Republican party you actually further his point w/r/t conservative philosophy and social change, perhaps ironically. And you also further your point on the value of doing "a little research." Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party. The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves). When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.) When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.) Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists). Things change, eh? /Marg Yes, things change, but by the time of civil rights movement, it was clearly the republicans that were on the conservative side and the dems that were libs. Repeatedly (in the modern era), the dems (libs) take claim to being civil rights supporters, yet it is the republicans (conservatives) that actually vote that way. I choose to watch how politicians vote, not how they speak. It's a much more accurate measure of their true intentions Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The following facts should answer your question quite nicely since the vast majority of republicans have historically been conservative, while the majority of deomcrats have historically been liberal (a term you avoid by calling liberals "progressive"). Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote. Republicans also passed an act which guaranteed the right or equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations, whether or not controlled by government. (In 1883 the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional). It was Aaron Sargent, Republican from California who introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn't become law of the land until 1920 when Republicans gained the majority in the US House and Senate. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. It should be noted that Democrats held the White House from 1933 to 1952. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (HR 7152) passed the House on Feb 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the Civil Rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34 or 80 percent. Democrats supported it 152 to 96 or 61 percent. In the Senate the person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois. There were 52 days of filibusters by Southern Democrats before Dirksen got the Senate to vote 76 to 18 to adopt a bipartisan substitute he had worked out. On June 19, 1964 the Senate passed the Civil Rights Bill 73 to 27. Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 in favor or 69 percent, while Republicans voted 27 to 6 or 82 percent in favor. Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee along with most Southern Democrats voted in opposition. On the Voter Rights Act of 1965, House Democrats voted 217 to 54 or 80 percent in favor while Republicans voted 111 to 20 or 85 percent in favor. In the Senate Democrats voted 49 to 17 or 62 percent in favor while Republicans voted 30 to 1 or 97 percent in favor. Since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Republicans have consistently voted in favor of renewal or enhancement of the Act. Finally, President George W. Bush has appointed more women and minorities to high level positions within his administration than any other President in history. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as Secretaries of State, Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General along with the appointment of an openly gay man, Scott Evertz, as Director of Office of National AIDS Policy and Michael E. Guest, openly gay, to be Ambassador to Romania to name just a few. Maybe you should do a little research. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Exactly, Councilman. It's a concept thing. I'm not an Excel guru by any means but I am fairly certain that there isn't a formula for "concepts". If you want concepts then keep doing what most skydiving operations have been doing for years or invest in a magic 8 ball and ask it where your spot should be. If you want a mathematical derived explanation based on real world conditions(like you asked for) to be expressed in an excel chart then you already have your answer. There's one at every DZ. I guess Lou is the one at his. If you took offense to my statement ,you took it the wrong way. Despite what you may think, I was not trying to be a dick when I wrote the above statement.I was simply being direct in answering your question, which was asking for a way to use a mathematical formula to determine the spot. You then later post and contradict yourself by saying that it's a concept thing. The simple answer is it can't be both without being half assed one way or the other. Do you want a concept or do you want an excel sheet that uses math to average the winds? Unless of course I misunderstood your post and you meant that I was the good looking one at my DZ? You can use which ever method you choose. However as I stated , I don't recommend using the described military excel/math formula for civilian skydiving for a plethora of reasons. Looking at the formulas, I think you could probably accomplish close to what you want by just setting up an excel sheet that averages the winds from exit altitude to 1000 feet and the wind velocities. Plug those sums into the canopy drift formula only D= 25(constant) x 3(opening altitude) x averaged wind velocity= XXXX kilometers on a XXX degree magnetic heading (averaged wind direction) . This eliminates the freefall drift calculations which would put you further away from the DZ. This method would put you in the ball park. However, if the winds at altitude are railing you could end up with people opening up downwind a good deal and or directly over the DZ with lots of altitude, creating traffic issues. My gut feeling is that using this method will always create a short spot that will need to be extended further up wind. But that's where the "concept" method could be applied and the 2nd load could be adjusted further up wind the guesstimated needed amount so that everyone landed on . This would also probably ensure cutaways landed on/around the DZ as well (Hmmm, this sounds very familiar). My guess is that using this method will probably put you in an aircraft flight pattern close to what most DZ already routinely fly as it is. This is just my SWAG, so no guarantees, but give it a try and see if it does what you are looking for. You still don't get it. My whole point is and has been that your replies are way over complicated. Why is it so tough to get you to understand that all I was looking for was a simple spot calculator? All the crap about different canopies and K, X, and whatever factors are irrelevant. As I said, I'm not trying to knock a flea off a dog's butt. Re-read Councilman's post. He hit it right on the head. I'm glad you're good at math and formulas, but demonstrating you know what you're talking about still hasn't produced anything. I hope you don't act like this at your DZ. If you do, your are the one I was referring to. If you choose to reply, please just type "blah, blah, blah". It will just as relevent as anything else you may type. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Exactly, Councilman. It's a concept thing. I'm not an Excel guru by any means but I am fairly certain that there isn't a formula for "concepts". If you want concepts then keep doing what most skydiving operations have been doing for years or invest in a magic 8 ball and ask it where your spot should be. If you want a mathematical derived explanation based on real world conditions(like you asked for) to be expressed in an excel chart then you already have your answer. There's one at every DZ. I guess Lou is the one at his. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Exactly, Councilman. It's a concept thing. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Point of clarification, this is for ROUND canopies? You wrote: Part of the formula requires that you know the "K" factor for the canopies being used. In skydiving operations canopies vary drastically in some instances. This "K" factor can be adjusted for but it further complicates and increases the likely hood of some people landing off a lot more than what we see now in civilian operations. I used round, non-steerable canopies in my example to take the canopy variable out of the equation (you know, the way a WDI just accounts for wind drift - not canopy flight variables). Your reply, while quite intelligent, went overboard relative to what I'm talking about. I was referring to a program that can simply say the spot is *approximately* X distance from the target at this heading, all based on some very general wind, exit & deployment, and sport discipline data. I'm not tryin' to knock a flea off dog's butt. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Well it took a few replies from the naysayers and complexity gurus, but I finally got my answer - yes! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's one of the issues of the day. Many (most?) jumpers hardly know how to spot because we (as an industry) teach them when they have a dozen jumps and then when they get off student status we tell them to watch for a green light, check for traffic, and exit. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yeah, yeah - whatever. I get all that. I just want a quick way to let an application do what we already do. Even if the forecast winds aren't accurate, it's still what we us as a starting point now. The application just makes it easier to arrive at the answer. Also, the winds can be determined accurately by the pilot using GPS. Jump run direction doesn't matter as it relates to this thread. All I want is a "the spot" as determined by the best available data, without respect to other factors. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The spot is the spot. Whether one chooses to heed the calculations of such an application is their business. And all the extra stuff like "K" factor and canopies is unimportant in the context of this thread. All I want to know is where the spot would be if I want to fall in a column of air from a specific altitude, open at a specific altitude, and drift a round, non-steerable canopy to the target. That's all. Everything else - like best jump run direction with cross-winds aloft, etc., are not part of this. But thanks for the input. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX