Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Wrapped up in a busy week

We've been moving our little office of four to a closer base over the past week or two which is very exhausting. Moving alongside PT along with work along with everything else we've got going on. That being said, I have time for clear thought when I'm in my car listening to news radio or news podcasts... or when I'm at home and have time to relax in front of the computer or beside my lovely wife.

So, tim time is heavily exposed to news recently... that's the reason for the recent rants (or at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

That being said, here's another few things to which I was exposed today...

These two headlines confused me in that they are placed right next to one another. Be Cautious of your Spending... but borrow to spend on a massive entitlement program. How about "Stop spending" and "Don't pay for what you can't afford"? Isn't that what we were supposed to learn from the housing bust?

thousands of jobs saved or created

First off, what department or reputable organization tracks jobs saved by government expenditure? Stop scratching your heads, there is none. So the government must come up with a formula...I stumbled across a report about the number of jobs saved by the economic stimulus program...
JARED BERNSTEIN: "The 150,000 jobs is -- it comes precisely out of the methodology I was just describing; that is, we have -- we know spend-out, we know the types of spend-out, so therefore we can assign multipliers to different parts of the plan. For example, tax cuts generate a smaller multiplier than direct government spending. Once you know the spend-out and the type of spending that you're engaged in, then you can derive an estimate of how many jobs you believe you created relative to what would have occurred in the job market were you not doing that spending."
Okay, "estimate"?, "you believe you created"? Is this guy for real?

" cuts generate a smaller multiplier than direct government spending."?!?!?!

By whose measure? Rand? The Heritage Group? The Tax Foundation? Which independent think tank has substantiated this argument? Those three actually refute it, as does history. During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending and unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II.

Then we're offered a Supreme Court nominee whom we are supposed to accept because she's a she, she's a hispanic, and her mother worked multiple jobs. Forget the fact that the majority of her decisions which were appealed to the Supreme Court were overturned. Weren't you guys listening? She's a double minority from a diverse background. Ignore the fact that she said a female hispanic could make a better decision in the Supreme Court than an old white man. She's got that right to say a certain race or gender can do something better, right?

What a load of horse-squeeze.

Harry Reid said, "I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them."

Right, because we don't actually want to accept her based on actuall legal interpretation and context, do we Harry?

Supreme Court Justices have no race, no gender, no bias... or at least they shouldn't. There should be no guess work when it comes to the supreme law of the land. It is when judges extrapolate, ammend, interpret, distort that they begin to legislate. Legislation is not their job. We've got enough people messing up that part. You guys in the Supreme Court are there to decide based on fact and law. Period.

Ah hell, if you think I'm full of horse swaggle on any of this, let me know. I write back.

No comments: