The United States of America: A $53.9 Trillion GDP economy

A) Yes, we won the wars, GW Bush Junior, whom was our "Commander in Chief", declared as much atop an Income Tax purchased Aircraft Carrier.

B) The TSA can not AND DOES NOT guarantee a nut won't do something to harm an aircraft and innocent people on the craft and on the ground.

C) I find it interesting you didn't, initially, make a distinction between Private Security and Public Security (TSA). You seemed to think there was no difference - there's a HUGE difference.

D) I also find it interesting you accept that the Private companies are competent enough and can produce a technological marvel - the actual aircraft! But are at the same time too incompetent that they can't manage to create a security screening service?! Oh, they can manufacturer the screening machines - they just can't figure out how to hire people to use them!?!? No, they're too f*cking moronic to manage to do that much. Oh, but "the Government" that gave us Public Housing Slum Projects and Public Schools with 47% functional illiteracy rates - they can?! What kind of base-arse-backwards logic is that???

E) Screening travelers by a PRIVATE security firm is not like living in a semi-police state. Screening travelers by a PUBLIC militarized security apparatus of the State is the definition of living in a semi-police State.

D) Lastly, the so-called "service" of the TSA is shit. Shitty shit. They suck. Their shitty "Public" service is just as shitty as all the public service we're stuck with. They're slow. They often have a very basic command of the English language. Most probably haven't even graduated from High School and have such basic pathetic training they'd NEVER be hired for the airline itself. Compare their shitty low-grade crap 'service' with the flight attendants - who are ALSO responsible for security. It's like comparing night with day. It's no wonder the TSA work for the State. They fit together like hand in glove.




So, you tell me Joe, why do we still have the TSA?
When are the TSA going to go away? NEVER???

When do we return to the normality BEFORE this bullshit made-up WMD lying shit-farce "War on Terror".
When Joe? Tell me that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nowhere. They never existed to begin with.

Why? Unlike you, they're living in the real world. They see the actual consequences of political ideology. They're not living in their mom's basement posting political diatribes on websites.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well that is certainly your ideological position. You don’t think regulations are necessary for the protection of life, health and liberty in addition to property? The unfortunate fact is Michael trade is a little more complicated than just protecting property and sound money. In order for trade to flourish everyone needs a rule book so market participants don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time the engage in commerce.

Does the truth hurt Michael? And what the hell is MSM? And has been explained to you umpteen times over the course of years including just a few posts ago, the answer is Dodd-Frank. A law that requires the Federal Reserve to monitor and manage systemic risk so that it doesn’t become critical as it did just a few years ago, and it provides a mechanism to break up the formerly too big to fail banks. So now no bank is too big to fail. If the big banks fail, they fail and will be dismembered just like any other corporation that fails.

The truth is the 99% have been taken to the cleaners since the Reagan administration when Reagan began a huge wealth transfer through the tax code. He raised taxes on the middle classes and lowered them on the wealthiest citizens. Raising Social Security taxes far in excess of that needed to fund Social Security which resulted in large funding excesses for decades and using those Social Security surpluses to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

If you are so concerned about the 1%, then you should be concerned about how they gain political power that is far in excess of their numbers. How is it the 1% can control the other 99% in a representative democracy? But no, you don’t care about that. What you care about is eliminating the one entity that gives power to the 99% of the population, the government, and giving that power to the 1% so they don’t have to be bothered with little things like regulations and they would be free to buy whomever and whatever they want and be unencumbered by little things like the 99%. This is kind of funny in a sad sort of way. The Koch brothers are running a big ad campaign now trying to convince Americans that middle class Americans, those earning more than 33K per years are the 1%’ters.

I’ll repeat my previous question, if you are so concerned about the 99% why don’t you advocate policies that will help them instead of policies that will hurt them? You know, those policies that will bring back 7 day work weeks and 12+ hour days and take away their healthcare and will pollute their land, air, and water and poison the foods they eat and the toys their children play with, you know back to the good old days of laissez-faire.

What is the matter Michael, truth hurt again? This is not radical stuff. The reason they call it a progressive tax system is because the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. A regressive tax scheme, the scheme advocated by you and your fellow libertarians, taxes the middle and lower classes more and the top 1% less. And a healthy bond market is good for everyone. It helps the little guy get money to finance his/her business or to buy a home. And it helps retirees by providing them with a steady income.

Where is your proof? You have none, because you are just making stuff up again Michael. Your paragraph doesn’t even make sense.

Oh and where is your proof? Second, I have repeatedly posted materials for the last several years that and once in this thread that clearly demonstrates that Keynesian economics has provided more economic stability, longer periods of economic growth and fewer, shorter and milder periods of economic decline and significantly moderated inflation too boot. Your repeated denial of fact is not going to make reality go away Michael. It is not going to make your ideological notions any less false.

I don’t know what you are trying to say here other than it has many factual errors. First, your claim of QE Infinity is sheer demagoguery. It has no basis in fact. And the Fed is not “pumping” money into TBTF banks. As has been repeatedly explained to you, even in this thread, what the Fed is doing is buying 85 billion dollars of debt securities every month. Further, what the Fed did or did not predict years ago is of little relevance. What is relevant is how the Fed reacts to changing economic circumstances. And the Fed has done remarkably well managing the nation’s monetary policies. And that is unfortunate for people of your ideological persuasion because it really pokes some big holes in your ideological notions.

I wouldn’t get your hopes up. Fed tapering, something which contradicts your claims about QE Infinity will only begin when the economy no longer needs it.

That is a dump of paranoid demagogic nonsense, illogical argument and fantasy Michael.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you believe George Junior? Well that explains a lot. The fact is while George Junior was declaring victory American combat troops were still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. We didn’t exit our combat troops from Iraq until well after George Junior left office.

I don’t recall anyone saying the TSA did guarantee a nut wouldn’t do something to harm an aircraft and innocent people on the craft and on the ground. So how is this relevant? It isn’t.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension Michael? I specifically wrote several times that the airport security function was transferred to the TSA because the private security firms charged with that responsibility were not doing a very good job. Guns, knives along with other contraband were still making its way through airport security. And since the TSA was created airport security has dramatically improved -it kind of goes against your ideological notion that private industry is always better than government.

So you were paying attention. Well the facts are what the facts are and the facts are privatization of airport security failed miserably and the federal government is and has done a much better job of it. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you Michael, there is nothing magical about private enterprise. Some private enterprise ventures work out, some do not. And the same applies to government. You have this ideological notion that government is always bad and private enterprise is always good. And it just ain’t so. There is no magic. The world is a little bit more complicated and nuanced than your ideology allows for.

Nonsense Michael, first the TSA is not “militarized”. It is a security organization, a police organization. I don’t know about you, but I don’t go into a dither every time a see a policeman.

Well that is your opinion and it doesn’t square with my experience nor does it square with the data. Since the creation of the TSA airport security has improved dramatically. We don’t have all the weapons getting through airport security which was common place before the TSA. As nasty as that fact is to you and your ideological notions about government, it is the truth. It is reality.

Why do you think we have the TSA Michael? Do you want to get on an airplane and roll the dice with your security? I like the fact that when my family travels by air we have a police agency like the TSA working to ensure their security…so that they won’t become the victim of some nutcase or nutcases. And unfortunately for you Michael, as long as we have nut cases who are willing and able to cause mass casualties and as long as air travel exists, the TSA is likely to remain, because the need for airport security is not going away.

Terrorism is a fact of life Michael. Nut cases are a fact of life and they are not going away.

 

Oh, funny that, go re-read your post. You happily raised the bar THAT high as an excuse NOT to have private security - in suppot of STATE run TSA. You stated: Can private security guarantee a nut wouldn’t do something to harm an aircraft and innocent people on the craft and on the ground? I said, even the TSA doesn't and CAN NOT guarantee that.

This is total bullshit.

You're telling me that the private companies that INVENT and MANUFACTURER the screening machines are to f*cking stupid to train someone to use the god damn machine? Is THAT your argument? What total bullshit. Most of the TSA have a HighSchool level of education and are just barely literate and just barely have a command over the English language. Oh, and it wasn't just ONE private security company that wasn't good enough - but ALL security companies across all of the world all at once - that were not good enough and had to be replaced with some shit TSA service.

This is total and utter bullshit.

When are the TSA going to be removed and replace with private security firms Joe? Never!? Is that your answer?

How about when a bomb goes off in a mall - then we'll need TSA there too right? Of course we will because Joe will say: See the private mall security can't do the job.

How about when a bomb goes off on the trains, the busses, the sports stadium, the schools, everywhere. Then we'll need TSA everywhere too right? Of course we will, because there's a statistically chance something might happen somewhere to Joe - even though that chance is actually smaller than being hit by lightening.

Your chances of being killed by:
- a terrorist 1 in 20,000,000.
- a car accident 1 in 19,000;
- drowning in a bathtub 1 in 800,000;
- dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000;
- being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000.

You are four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist Joe. So you can take your TSA semi-Police State and shove it up your arse.



One of us is being led by the nose - and it's you. You support everything and anything your "Civil Servants" tell you is good for you.





One more time Joe: When is the TSA going to end? When? When are we going to have private security firms in the Airports? Or are you happy to live in a semi-police State Joe? Is that what you want for your children? Because there's always going to be some nut, somewhere.

How about the 2nd amendment? Do you want to end that one too?
How about the 4th amendment? Do you want to end that one too?

Just how must Civil Liberty/Prosperity are you willing to trade in so you can live in the ILLUSION the semi-Police State can keep you safe from some statistically insignificant portion of the population who is a 'nut' (and was probably spanked into becoming one).

 

You are confusing input with output - there is no evidence that confiscating all that stuff has made us any safer, and plenty of evidence (from the fact that ten years later we still don't have a fly list, to the continuing existence of long lines and delays, to the continual recurrence of TSA screwups in identity and inconveniencing to the point of harassment perfectly innocent people, to the observation that these afflictions seem oddly (from a statistical point of view) weighted in frequency toward leftists and certain ethnicities) that they are among the many bloated and bureaucratically muddled federal agencies set in power thanks to the Patriot Act and related legislation.

Michael may be silly in his fantasies about private agency superiority in such matters, but that doesn't make him wrong in all of his descriptions of current government agency functioning.

And the only question facing the readers here is where your area of ignorance lies - do you not know what Keynesian economics is, or do you not know what US economic policy has been for the past thirty or forty years? My bet is both.

 

I have two questions:

1) The private companies that INVENT and MANUFACTURER the highly sophisticated and complex X-ray and chemical screening machines used BY the TSA are too f*cking stupid to train someone to use the god damn machine?

Is this your argument?

2) The 9/11 attacks happened 12 years ago Joe. When are we going to get rid of the TSA?

 

That is, of course, nonsense since we all know full well that Hussein used WMDs on many occasions. What isn't clear is where they went, but apparently they were all destroyed or moved before the 2003 invasion.

 

Whether stupidity is their problem, or something else is more of a factor, I don't know. I do know that training, documentation, hell even a decent owner's manual or a phone help line that functions, seems often beyond the capabilities of the manufacturers of such equipment. The phone sitting next to me as I type this came with an illegible owner's manual (the button symbols printed as indecipherable black rectangles), no better replacement is available, and the online version is a slow file of dozens and dozens of Power Point slides in pdf format, one slide per page.

 

Right. But he did not have any WHEN WE INVADED. Which was the rationale given for the invasion.

 

I want to know when will the TSA be replaced by private security? When?

The "Wars" are over. We won - remember? So why do we still have the TSA?
Why is the NSA spying on American's private communications?


I hope ObamaCare is worth it to you. No one get's to use State force for free - it comes at the cost of personal liberty (by definition private property must be violated). So-called "Progressives" use State force as a basis, a starting point, and claim to want to "Help" Citizens. As if there is no other option. One big false dichotomy that the poor will be left destitute if the State doesn't step in to "Help". Take a good look at Public Housing Slum Projects. Force doesn't create an equitable society - voluntarism does. Progressivism has only given us a deeply Fascist State. So much so Joe didn't even notice the difference between TSA and private security - until I pointed it out; and then he immediately went on to stand and defend the State over that of the Private Citizen.

We normalize THIS quickly.

The next generation is already normalized to life in a surveillance semi-Police State. They show their "Public ID" card (which they carry with them at all times) to enter a bus, a train, a fairy, a plane. Everything. How wonderful. The TSA, NSA, War, the New Economy - it's all very normal to them and most will never question what they've been raised to think of as normal. For proof - take a look in the mirror.

 

The real question is why? Why replace TSA with private security? We had private security in place at our airports at the time of 9/11 and they failed to detected multiple threats. So where is the benefit in using private versus public airport police? If you can show some advantage, great. But you can't. And actually there are a few airports that do you private security under the supervision of the TSA.

The unfortunate fact for you is that we had private security at our airports and it failed repeatedly to do what it was suppose to do and that is why the TSA was created back in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks

Are you really that dense Michael?

Obamacare has nothing to do with a police state or a public ID card. You should talk to your fellow conservatives about the ID Card as they are requiring ID cards for voting.

 

Because we don't want to live in a semi-Police State.

Another reason would be economic. Private security would provide a better service. But, this isn't my reason, I do NOT want to live in publicly funded police state.

Right now someone can walk into any mall, or grocery store, or sporting event, or church or anywhere and start stabbing, shooting, bombing, whatever. It's NOT POSSIBLE to make society 100% safe Joe.

That was 12 YEARS AGO. So what? Now we have to live in a Semi-Police State? Is THAT your solution?

How many "Conservative" Atheists do you know Joe? Being fiscally responsible or irresponsible is pretty much independent of the two parties - both of which represent nothing but irresponsibility.




Is your argument that the pathetic training the TSA receives cannot somehow be out matched by Private security firms?! What kind of bullshit nonsense is that? The TSA has allowed all sorts of people onto planes with all sorts of crap - including bombs. You're literally making ZERO sense. Your argument is that the Government can provide better security than the actual Private Industry that INVENTS the equipment that the government is dependent on to provide security. The Private Industry that builds the planes, flies the planes, services the plans - cannot manage to do menial security?!?

DO you understand how utterly idiotic that sounds? HAVE you actually spoken to any TSA? Let's put it this way: The bar for entry is far from high.



Now, one more time: WHEN is the TSA going to end? When? Is the answer NEVER? So the "War on Terror" will be indefinite?!?! AND this doesn't bother you at all? Nice one Joe. Good to see you're challenging the statuesque. No, Joe isn't one to be manipulated by the ruling oligarchy, he's just in 100% agreement with them 100% of the time. That's just a coincidence. Would you be shocked to know the Koch brothers own stocks in various security firms that sell bloated equipment and training contracts to the Government? One of us is being led around by the nose - who do you think that is?




I have another two questions:

1) Do you understand the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE? I know given our Fascist State it is becoming difficult to see the difference between the two - but you do understand there is a difference?

2) WHEN will the Government/NSA stop spying on US Citizens?

 

So you think security screening at airports equates to living in a “semi-police” state? Well I think that speaks volumes. We have had security screening at US airports for decades. Airport security predates the “war on terror”. It began back in the 60’s after a series of high profile hijackings. Sky Marshals (federal on board security) began back in the 70’s. Airport security has been around for a half century and as the threats increase, the security in our airports has increased.

So you argument goes like this, I don’t like police. Crime increases, so let’s have fewer police. It doesn’t make sense. And it is quite apparent to people who unlike you are not wedded to your ideology and paranoia.

Where is your proof? I have repeatedly asked to back up your claims that private security would be “better”. The reason we started with private security at our airports. It didn’t’ work. That is why we have federal security at our airports. And studies have been conducted, some as recently as a few years ago. And those studies do not support your ideological notions about airport security.

Repeating absurd argument doesn’t make it any less absurd. We are not talking about making society 100% safe. We are talking about securing our airports in order to keep air travelers and others safe. We can do that and we have done that.

Yeah so what, 12 years of airport secure airports – so what? The only police state is the one that exists between your ears. Therefore there is nothing to fix.

Well actually that is not true. Democrats of the last two decades have been fiscally responsible. One cannot say that of Republicans. Republicans have been anything but fiscally responsible and they remain fiscally irresponsible to this minute – although a very few are beginning to move towards fiscal sanity.

And I have no idea what atheism has to do with this discussion.

Reality is tough for you Michael. Again, where is your proof that private security is better than federal security? You don’t have that proof. That is why you haven’t produced it. Making and repeating declarative ideological statements is not a substitute for evidence. The unpleasant fact for you Michael is that public security has worked much better than private security. That is why the TSA was created. And periodically studies are conducted on airport security to satisfy people like you, and those studies have not made the conclusions demanded by your ideology. And that is why the TSA remains in the public domain.

This is what I said, “Obamacare has nothing to do with a police state or a public ID card. You should talk to your fellow conservatives about the ID Card as they are requiring ID cards for voting.”. You raised the issue. Obamacare has nothing to do with airport security. So if you think that is idiotic, why did you raise the issue?

The unpleasant fact for you is that TSA security has been better than the private security it replaced. That is the bottom line. And you cannot prove any of your claims.

Here are some more unpleasant facts for you Michael. The problems with airport security began decades before “the war on terrorism”. Just as every civilized society needs police, we will continue to need airport security police. Criminals don’t limit themselves to geographic terrains. As long as we have criminals, we will have a need for airport security. But that doesn’t mean we live in a police state.

If you think I agree with the “oligarchy”, whatever that means, then you have not been paying attention. There are several problems with our democracy as I have repeatedly written about over the years. In fact my first post on Sciforms advocated a change in our Constitution to take the influence of special interest money out of our political system and implement a congressional code of ethics that would eliminate the influence of special interest money on our elected officials and make them more accountable to the people they are supposed to represent.

Additionally, your claims about the Koch brothers are more made up nonsense. The Koch brothers are into fundamental industries like fiber, oil, consumer goods, and other minerals like gypsum. The Koch’s are not high tech kind of guys. And the Koch brothers are funding your ideological movement. Those are the hard unpleasant facts for you Michael…not that I expect you will pay them any attention. You never had, and I don’t expect you ever will.

http://www.kochind.com/

Repeatedly asking questions will not change the answers Michael. These questions are based on false premises.

 

Airports are free to choose to use private security if they want.

It is also possible for someone to walk into any airport and start stabbing, shooting, bombing, whatever. Might kill 10 people. They can also hijack a few planes and kill 3000. All any security can do is reduce the odds of that happening.

Right. So has private security.

And is even lower for private security firms.

"We'll have to do a background check on you."
"Oh, uh . . . do I really have to?"
"Well, if you don't mind minimum wage, we'll just waive that. Looks better on our bottom line."

Probably never. When is the FCC going to end? The FAA? The NTSB? Probably never. (At least not until they get replaced by something that works better.)

It will continue for another 10 years or so until there is another bogeyman. Perhaps China. Then it will be "the yellow threat" and people will forget all about terrorism.

A PRIVATE company doing something not quite ethical? Impossible! Everyone knows that private companies always have your best interests in mind. That's why we don't need any regulations on them.

 

AND, if this company did do business like that then either (A) they'd violate their rental agreement with the airport and/or (B) their insurance would increase which means their tickets would increase which means they go bust (C) people just aren't THAT worried about "Terrorists" (which most aren't) (D) etc....

See how voluntarism works? It's pretty simple really.

 

Sure. Now all we have to do is get the real world to line up with your imagination. What would we need here - - lessee - - - we need a private security force engaged via a "rental agreement" with an airport, carrying insurance on the details of their procedural bureaucracy, and selling tickets for something whose price is based on those procedures, the evaluation of which would be rigorous if "people" cared about terrorism and only slack otherwise.

 

Nice strawman.

Private security is part and parcel of plenty of private institutions. Tell me, why is it that the Pentagon pays $180,000 for a contract killer instead of using it's own $35,000 killers? Why pay more when you have plenty of cannon fodder of your own? Oh, that's right - in the real world you lose wars due to your utter incompetence. And when that happens you have to pay a professional to come in and clean up your mess.

Anyway, you can live in your delusion where private companies can invent the machines used to screen for "Terrorists"/normalize Americans to being screened by their Public "Servants" - your friendly TSA but are somehow too stupid to use on themselves.

It really doesn't matter. We have the semi-literate (if) thugs working for the TSA and so our wonderous Government has secured more power and control over us, we have less Civil Liberties - and this will continue to happen until one day the cancer kills the host. The TSA is never going away. And, soon they'll be working at the malls, the sporting events, highschools, pretty much everywhere there already isn't a militarized police 'officer'.

Yup, lucky you - more Progressive Fascism to go along with your NSA spying semi-Police State. Which also isn't going away. It's also going to get more intrusive. When your grandkids log onto the internet with their Government approved ID login - you can tell them how you were there to ensure we all lived happily in our wondrous "Progressive America". Hey, once we get your ObamayCare up and running we can get rid of the 'semi-' and all go live in your Worker's Paradise of Detroit.

 

You used to know the answer to that one - a corrupt government taking bribes from a venal and violent and unprincipled organization of private contractors and mercenaries, and trying to fight highly profitable wars without alienating the voters by getting their kids killed. Same reason they use drones.

Including where I work, and at the local nukes.

I still recall the industry spokesman bragging up the private contractor security of their rail transport of nuke waste, back a few years now. Responding to some nervous queries in my neighborhood about how the load was secured to the flatbed railcar as they rolled past our back yards, he said this: that the train never got above jogging speed but never stopped, the casks were capable of taking great shock far beyond anything possible at the speeds involved, and the casks weighed 300 pounds so it would require equipment to move them - no terrorist would have the opportunity to employ such gear;

therefore they were not secured to the cars.

At the time I was making a living moving 600 pound objects by hand with one partner. I estimated I could jump on the car from the blind curve woodlot near my house, get one of those casks off and into the woods in about 90 seconds, wait out the trailing security car, and have it in my pickup under a few hay bales for cover before the trail car lights picked up the gap for sure - then it would be a mere matter of driving a few hundred yards to the boat launch on the river, and I could have the thing four feet under of brown water and invisible in less than eight minutes flat. Back on the road with my hay ready to talk about whether I'd seen anyone driving heavy equipment around in ten.

 

Why? Why would the rental agreement cover that? Why wouldn't the airport be free to use the crappiest, cheapest security they could? Are you proposing (dum da dummmm) GOVERNMENT REGULATION of such contracts?

Again, why would they have insurance? It would surely be cheaper to just declare bankruptcy if something bad happened, then reopen later as a different corporation.

More money for the airlines at that airport + captive audience (the people who live in that city) - sounds like a win/win for the airport and the airlines.

Yes it sure sounds easy. Then you run into the always-troublesome problem called "the real world."

That's why libertarianism always fails. Like communism, it sounds great in theory. Then the real world intrudes.