is TSA cost effective?

Geeze, your a genious!! I wish I had thought of that. Have you been to my AVGP blog, wherein I put together a fully volunteer government funded by people like yourself. I cut every inch of fat out of the equation. For example, if you don't fly, why would you fund the TSA? :eusa_angel:

All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

Like those "Day Use Fee Parks"?

KInda. If you want the gov. to build roads, you donate to roads. If you want your representatives to have a wage for doing your business, you donate to them. Don't want to fund military & all that entails these days, don't fund it.

No IRS, No fed taxes. Each state gov will tax & spend, but send in no fed taxes or receive fed taxes. Just pull out your credit card and fund away as you please.

Once again we have to endure the liberal "all or nothing" straw man argument. Invalid....Fail.
 
I think TSA agents are worth a lot more than they get, if I am the one flying. I don't know why more people don't get their own twin engine and learn to fly themselves to work. Or just fly someone's charter service and avoid all the pat down & xrays. The small business doesn't get all the corporate welfare the corporations do.

These people are not trained properly and are not professional. Therefore they do not deserve "professional" salaries.
 
KInda. If you want the gov. to build roads, you donate to roads. If you want your representatives to have a wage for doing your business, you donate to them. Don't want to fund military & all that entails these days, don't fund it.

No IRS, No fed taxes. Each state gov will tax & spend, but send in no fed taxes or receive fed taxes. Just pull out your credit card and fund away as you please.

So the law is treated like a marketplace? i think they have that in Mexico, actually...

Each state would handle their own laws, and those are taxed for. Congress can write laws, presidents can sign them into law, but only you decide if it will be funded, by making your donations to whatever you support. So maybe it is like a market place, but shouldn't you be the one deciding what you want funded, not a lobbyist??

Actually, the US House of Representatives, "the people's house" can and does with regularity de-fund certain laws in place of attempting to repeal them.
For example, the new GOP controlled House intends to do just that to Obamacare.
Certain provisions of the law will be de-funded while others may be stripped from the law.
 
So the law is treated like a marketplace? i think they have that in Mexico, actually...

Each state would handle their own laws, and those are taxed for. Congress can write laws, presidents can sign them into law, but only you decide if it will be funded, by making your donations to whatever you support. So maybe it is like a market place, but shouldn't you be the one deciding what you want funded, not a lobbyist??

Actually, the US House of Representatives, "the people's house" can and does with regularity de-fund certain laws in place of attempting to repeal them.
For example, the new GOP controlled House intends to do just that to Obamacare.
Certain provisions of the law will be de-funded while others may be stripped from the law.

That is a real good point. That was Obama's first mistake. He should have had the NHC already written and ready to ram rod it through congress on the first day like they did NAFTA. The shouting of dictator wouldn't have lasted 3-4 months. LMAO! The guy preaced that NHC through his entire campaign, couple of years, and had nothing ready to go. Tsk!:eusa_angel:
 
Like those "Day Use Fee Parks"?

KInda. If you want the gov. to build roads, you donate to roads. If you want your representatives to have a wage for doing your business, you donate to them. Don't want to fund military & all that entails these days, don't fund it.

No IRS, No fed taxes. Each state gov will tax & spend, but send in no fed taxes or receive fed taxes. Just pull out your credit card and fund away as you please.

Once again we have to endure the liberal "all or nothing" straw man argument. Invalid....Fail.

I don't know what you are calling all or nothing? The fact that you are the government and you should decide how your money would be spent?? Instead of a crooked politician or lobbyist, etc.? If you want to clean corruption out of Congress, pay attention. I am tired of the bullshit enough to put together a program that will even hurt liberal policies, because if welfare can't be funded by the people, there will be no welfare. Don't want SS, don't fund it. Don't want NHC, don't fund it. IF something cannot be funded by the people, obviously the people don't want it to begin with, correct?? It is not all or nothing, because somethings will be funded by the right and by the left, you just won't be forced to fund anything you don't want or don't like. It might mean the end to abortion, and the restoration of the 2nd Amendment when the ATF isn't funded along with it's punitive laws.

In my thinking this is the best bi-partisan approach to restoring America to whatever it is we want it to be.
 
Last edited:
Each state would handle their own laws, and those are taxed for. Congress can write laws, presidents can sign them into law, but only you decide if it will be funded, by making your donations to whatever you support. So maybe it is like a market place, but shouldn't you be the one deciding what you want funded, not a lobbyist??

Actually, the US House of Representatives, "the people's house" can and does with regularity de-fund certain laws in place of attempting to repeal them.
For example, the new GOP controlled House intends to do just that to Obamacare.
Certain provisions of the law will be de-funded while others may be stripped from the law.

That is a real good point. That was Obama's first mistake. He should have had the NHC already written and ready to ram rod it through congress on the first day like they did NAFTA. The shouting of dictator wouldn't have lasted 3-4 months. LMAO! The guy preaced that NHC through his entire campaign, couple of years, and had nothing ready to go. Tsk!:eusa_angel:

PLEASE READ:

For Immediate Release September 14, 1993




REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON,
PRESIDENT BUSH, PRESIDENT CARTER, PRESIDENT FORD,
AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE
IN SIGNING OF NAFTA SIDE AGREEMENTS

 
This is an argument filled with revolving mirrors.

The airlines already had the opportunity to fund their own airport security. In 2001, the average airport security screeners earned minimum wage or pennies above minimum wage. The technology airport security screeners used were obsolete. There was no uniform standard of screening performance; there was no true oversight by the federal government. The Department of Transportation conducted infrequent inspections that were oriented towards administrative procedures rather than screening performance. In other words, it didn't matter how well a screener performed; it didn't matter if the screener had high absenteeism; it didn't matter if the screener was a US citizen. However, if the files weren't straight, then there was hell to pay.

I'm not saying that TSA is the solution, but it is a step towards the right direction. TSA screeners have to qualify for the job and they have to stay qualified. No other government agency tests their employees as frequently as the TSA. If a screener fails to qualify during an annual certification test, that screener is terminated for cause. In other government jobs, federal employees can fight this type of termination; TSOs cannot. It is a condition in their contract; it is part of the law passed by Congress.

As for technology, look to Congress for that. TSA is powerless to introduce new technologies. Only Congress can fund any new technologies or improvements to existing technologies. As for the technology itself, the x-ray machines, walk-through metal detectors, hand held metal detectors, baggage screening x-rays and explosive detectors are all much needed steps towards the right direction that would not have been possible under pre-9/11 conditions. As a general rule, corporations are very stingy when it comes to spending any money towards security and tend to take the cheapest route possible.

Procedures are the only problem I have with TSA. I think TSA has plenty of room for improvement in that area. I understand the concept of body scanning, but I believe TSA should exercise more common sense. The problem with the airlines is that they tend to sacrifice security for customer satisfaction. In other words, airlines tend to take the path of least resistance even when security procedures require more scrutiny. This was the type of security that was in place pre-9/11. TSA's decisions are more closely tied in with law enforcement and other federal agencies; although there certainly is room for improvement. Airline decisions were based on whether or not risking pissing off a paying customer. That makes for a serious weakness in security.

The final aspect is cost. It's a smoke and mirrors argument. I predict that airlines won't flock to private security because doing so will cost them more. It is cheaper for the airlines to allow TSA to absorb all the costs. Otherwise, if the airlines go with private security, the private contractor screeners will have to meet the exact same hiring qualifications as TSA, will have to undergo the exact same training as TSA, will have to be paid a wage that is competitive with TSA wages, will have to re-qualify every year just like TSA, will have to implement the exact same screening procedures as TSA.

Why would the airlines want to inherit this headache?

I am always amazed how people can predict the future.

The odds of airlines opting out of TSA screenings is exactly 0.0% because the airlines do not have a choice. The odds of airports opting out are higher, in fact, it has already begun.
 
I think the xray scanner that checks for foreign objects in the body could be improved to feed the data into a computer generated checker no human would have to review until an alarm was sounded if something unusual was found. The picture of xray would only have to ID the person to a seat number on the plane, not their name. It could have a reviewer in another area check the entire planes data before people board. BUT do everybody, not randon BS.

And people with braces on legs, pins in hips, etc. should be screened by a human.

I also don't think we are giving these people much credit or wages for the dangerous job they are performing. If a terrorist is caught, they are going to blow themselves up taking as many in the vacinity as possible, to strike fear into TSA agents.

Dangerous jobs? The job they do is considered so dangerous that screeners are prohibited from carrying weapons and handcuffs. Just how fucking dangerous do you think the job is? How many TSA goons have been injured as a result of terrorism?
 
I think the xray scanner that checks for foreign objects in the body could be improved to feed the data into a computer generated checker no human would have to review until an alarm was sounded if something unusual was found. The picture of xray would only have to ID the person to a seat number on the plane, not their name. It could have a reviewer in another area check the entire planes data before people board. BUT do everybody, not randon BS.

And people with braces on legs, pins in hips, etc. should be screened by a human.

I also don't think we are giving these people much credit or wages for the dangerous job they are performing. If a terrorist is caught, they are going to blow themselves up taking as many in the vacinity as possible, to strike fear into TSA agents.

Actually, people with hip and knee replacements prefer the body scanner because they can clear through the checkpoint without any additional fuss...whereas they ALWAYS have to undergo secondary screening with the metal detector.

TSA is not a law enforcement agency. It does not "catch terrorists." The CIA, FBI and certain other alphabet agencies do that.

I think the potential exists for terrorists to deliberately attack checkpoints. When that day comes, it will mean that they have given up on bringing down planes. But I think it will be a while before that happens.

No one gives the postal worker much credit for facing danger other than the occasional co-worker who goes on a rampage. But during the great anthrax scare, it was several postal workers who were exposed to biological weapons just because they were at work, doing their jobs, sorting through mail addressed to other people.

You know this because...?

How many mail carriers died during the great antrax fear mongering anyway? My guess is more postal workers were killed on the job by car accidents than anthrax.
 
"I don't think they're too invasive"

You want somebody jamming their thumbs into your crotch?

whatever gets you hard, i guess...

Actually, they never touch your crotch. The only difference between the new pat down and old pat down is that they use sliding motions. I was trained by the military how to pat down prisoners, detainees and other personnel. TSA's pat down methods are not even close when it comes to the thoroughness of a military pat-down.

Your mileage may vary.

Which begs the question, how many underwear bombs are these pat downs going to find?
 
This is an argument filled with revolving mirrors.

The airlines already had the opportunity to fund their own airport security. In 2001, the average airport security screeners earned minimum wage or pennies above minimum wage. The technology airport security screeners used were obsolete. There was no uniform standard of screening performance; there was no true oversight by the federal government. The Department of Transportation conducted infrequent inspections that were oriented towards administrative procedures rather than screening performance. In other words, it didn't matter how well a screener performed; it didn't matter if the screener had high absenteeism; it didn't matter if the screener was a US citizen. However, if the files weren't straight, then there was hell to pay.

I'm not saying that TSA is the solution, but it is a step towards the right direction. TSA screeners have to qualify for the job and they have to stay qualified. No other government agency tests their employees as frequently as the TSA. If a screener fails to qualify during an annual certification test, that screener is terminated for cause. In other government jobs, federal employees can fight this type of termination; TSOs cannot. It is a condition in their contract; it is part of the law passed by Congress.

As for technology, look to Congress for that. TSA is powerless to introduce new technologies. Only Congress can fund any new technologies or improvements to existing technologies. As for the technology itself, the x-ray machines, walk-through metal detectors, hand held metal detectors, baggage screening x-rays and explosive detectors are all much needed steps towards the right direction that would not have been possible under pre-9/11 conditions. As a general rule, corporations are very stingy when it comes to spending any money towards security and tend to take the cheapest route possible.

Procedures are the only problem I have with TSA. I think TSA has plenty of room for improvement in that area. I understand the concept of body scanning, but I believe TSA should exercise more common sense. The problem with the airlines is that they tend to sacrifice security for customer satisfaction. In other words, airlines tend to take the path of least resistance even when security procedures require more scrutiny. This was the type of security that was in place pre-9/11. TSA's decisions are more closely tied in with law enforcement and other federal agencies; although there certainly is room for improvement. Airline decisions were based on whether or not risking pissing off a paying customer. That makes for a serious weakness in security.

The final aspect is cost. It's a smoke and mirrors argument. I predict that airlines won't flock to private security because doing so will cost them more. It is cheaper for the airlines to allow TSA to absorb all the costs. Otherwise, if the airlines go with private security, the private contractor screeners will have to meet the exact same hiring qualifications as TSA, will have to undergo the exact same training as TSA, will have to be paid a wage that is competitive with TSA wages, will have to re-qualify every year just like TSA, will have to implement the exact same screening procedures as TSA.

Why would the airlines want to inherit this headache?

I am always amazed how people can predict the future.

The odds of airlines opting out of TSA screenings is exactly 0.0% because the airlines do not have a choice. The odds of airports opting out are higher, in fact, it has already begun.

OK, airlines/airports, I used the terms interchangeably, you win for being picky.

Which airports have opted out? The small category IV airports which are cost ineffective for TSA. These are the airports that TSA has encouraged to opt out and go private because it is more cost efficient. The reason they are cost efficient is because these are either seasonal airports or airports with one or two daily flights.

I don't believe any of the major airports will opt out, especially the category X or category I airports (major and minor hub airports). For them, it is simply not good business sense.
 
OK, airlines/airports, I used the terms interchangeably, you win for being picky.

Which airports have opted out? The small category IV airports which are cost ineffective for TSA. These are the airports that TSA has encouraged to opt out and go private because it is more cost efficient. The reason they are cost efficient is because these are either seasonal airports or airports with one or two daily flights.

I don't believe any of the major airports will opt out, especially the category X or category I airports (major and minor hub airports). For them, it is simply not good business sense.

even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.
 
"I don't think they're too invasive"

You want somebody jamming their thumbs into your crotch?

whatever gets you hard, i guess...

Actually, they never touch your crotch. The only difference between the new pat down and old pat down is that they use sliding motions. I was trained by the military how to pat down prisoners, detainees and other personnel. TSA's pat down methods are not even close when it comes to the thoroughness of a military pat-down.

Your mileage may vary.

Which begs the question, how many underwear bombs are these pat downs going to find?

I know you're much brighter than what you just posted.

If the bad guys ever come up with a penis-bomb, then I suppose your point is valid. The question was about screeners touching the penis (or at least that's what I assumed). But if you want to get technical, I suppose screeners do touch the area where the leg meets the torso. They do not directly touch the penis.

This is no different than it was when the private contractors were conducting pat downs.

That's two points to you for being picky. I didn't realize how important verbiage was to some folks, so I guess I'll watch what I type so I don't confuse you. :tank:
 
OK, airlines/airports, I used the terms interchangeably, you win for being picky.

Which airports have opted out? The small category IV airports which are cost ineffective for TSA. These are the airports that TSA has encouraged to opt out and go private because it is more cost efficient. The reason they are cost efficient is because these are either seasonal airports or airports with one or two daily flights.

I don't believe any of the major airports will opt out, especially the category X or category I airports (major and minor hub airports). For them, it is simply not good business sense.

even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.

That is exactly correct. It would still be the exact same procedures and passengers would still have to go to TSA, not the airport, to address complaints. The only difference would be in the style of uniform worn by the screeners and their wages.

Oh yeah, I forgot, one big difference: private screeners can have collective bargaining through their unions, federal screeners cannot.
 
OK, airlines/airports, I used the terms interchangeably, you win for being picky.

Which airports have opted out? The small category IV airports which are cost ineffective for TSA. These are the airports that TSA has encouraged to opt out and go private because it is more cost efficient. The reason they are cost efficient is because these are either seasonal airports or airports with one or two daily flights.

I don't believe any of the major airports will opt out, especially the category X or category I airports (major and minor hub airports). For them, it is simply not good business sense.

even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.

That is exactly correct. It would still be the exact same procedures and passengers would still have to go to TSA, not the airport, to address complaints. The only difference would be in the style of uniform worn by the screeners and their wages.

Oh yeah, I forgot, one big difference: private screeners can have collective bargaining through their unions, federal screeners cannot.
Also, constitutionally the government cannot share any data obtained by tsa with the public at large. In other words, the government is not going to use your "naked" scan to blackmail you. Private companies are not held to the same standards and lawsuits against them regarding privacy violation would be difficult if not impossible.

:eusa_eh:
 
If there are scores of terrorists just waiting for the oppportunity to blow up planes then the answer is YES, DEFINITELY the TSA is cost effective.

However if there are no or very very few terrorists just waiting for the chance to blow up passenger planes then the answer is a resounding NO, TSA is a terribly inefficient use of the money.

So we really cannot know, can we?
 

Forum List

Back
Top