Here is an article that you should read!!! (just click on the title)
Travel TSA defends privacy, safety of imaging machines Seattle Times Newspaper
Travelers are making such a big thing .............out of nothing. Now we have a Senator from Alaska refusing to go through an imaging machine........because she had a mastectomy. Something you may not know is that many, government officials DO NOT GO THROUGH a security check. I wonder if the TSA agents go through an inspection and if not......WHY? .....can they be eliminated from terrorist actions? Are they so level headed that they will NEVER want to due some harm to another person. OH excuse me, they must be level headed they are government employees.
Some government officials use government A/C paid for by the taxpayers and I would venture to say that all charge their travels to their offices..........paid by the taxpayers. So, if the taxpayers are paying for their travel and they work for us, the taxpayers. Why can't we deduct their costs off our income taxes????
Granted ...... I had some fun on a previous posting about the Airline Captain that apparently went into the mens room and vomitted after having to go through........a gropping.......by a male inspector. Would he feel the same way if it were a female inspector?..... Bet not!! I can understand the reason flight crews are reluctant to go through these checks, after all, just think .......... some may go through 2-4 checks per day depending on flight schedules. The one realistic reason is that we don't know for sure if the radiation needed can effect them as years go by.......and the government doesn't know either. Then again, I open and use my microwave at least 15-20 times a day, have I now been effected by this radiation? Is this the reason I am slightly overweight?
I still feel that the task of inspecting travellers can be transferred to the private sector........and that will help big time to reduce the deficit.........and in return can be just as effective. Just because you wear a government supplied uniform it does not justify that you are anymore efficient at your job.........or at least.......that's what the conservatives like to think.
Speaking about that. I, today, read an interesting article written by Paul Krugman, not only a Syndicated columnist but also a Noble prize winner of economics. He wrote , what I thought was a true ........but funny..... item and I want to pass it on to you. It was the result of a Republican report released last week at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. It was called "Spend less, Owe less, Grow the Economy" They (the republicans) argued that slashing government spending and employment in the face of a deeply depressed economy would actually create jobs. I quote this so I don't get in wrong.
Here is the reports explanation of how layoffs would create jobs
"A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, this lowering labor cost. Dropping the euphemisms what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of educated, skilled workers...in case you're wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers..we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring. There is, if you think about it, an immediate logical problem here. Republicans are saying that job destruction leads to lower wages, which leads to job creation, But won't this job creation lead to higher wages, which leads to job destruction. which leads to....? I need some aspirin
Beyond that, why would lower wages promote higher employment?
There's a fallacy of composition here. Since workers at any individual company may be able to save their jobs by accepting a pay cut, you might think that we can increase overall employment by cutting everyone wages. But pay cuts at, say, General Motors have helped save some workers jobs by making GM more competitive with other companies whose wage costs haven't fallen. There's no comparable benefit when you cut everyones' wages at the same time
In fact, across the board wage cuts would almost certainly reduce not increase, employment. Why? Because while earnings would fall, debts would not, so a general fall in wages would worsen the debt problems that are, at this point, the principal obstacle to recovery.
Now, I need an aspirin also!!!!!! I basically stand by my own thoughts. If you have no incoming money......the result is .............you cannot spend.............therefore you have no budget...........this all leads to
1. you make money
2. you spend money
3. you borrow money...................but it has to be paid back..............to someone.................SSSOOOO
4. you make more money
5. you can spend more money, etc etc etc
6. If you stop ALL spending , you cannot buy anything so why make money. Lets all go on a .......FREE........... vacation.
