Thread: No They Can't

Did anyone else watch the show on Fox News, or read about the book by John Stossel? I watched the show, hardly ever watch Fox News, and it was pretty interesting. He covers some topics that are examples of why I, and many others, oppose more government in many cases. He looks at things like the TSA, ADA act, head start, college grants, and a few others, and how even though they are failures they keep getting more and more funding.

I am sure many will dismiss it because it is Stossel and Fox, and I admit I have not done any research on his claims, but I think I might get the book to see what sources he sights.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Does he cover why the religious right is against more government except when it comes to marriage and a woman's body? I keed. I'll check this out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

I think his story, from what I saw, is that more rules isn't always the answer. Not that it can't be the answer, but isn't always. More importantly he points out that even when the government sees errors in their rules they don't eliminate them, as that would eliminate the need for some of their own, but add to it.

According to him the San Francisco airport is the only major airport that has private security instead of the TSA. He says the TSA did a study on the SF airport security and found it to be twice as effective, more efficient, and even cheaper, but when other airports applied to opt out of the TSA in favor of private security they were told NO.

I am not in favor of removing all rules and regulations, and from what I saw neither is he, but in using some common sense to correct flaws in our current ones.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

John Stossel isn't your normal Faux News mouth-breather, he's actually a libertarian. So, obviously I'm not a fan of his, but I wouldn't write him off like most of those morons on Faux. That said, I will always oppose privatization of security. I oppose the use of "private contractors" in war zones and I'll oppose any attempt to use private security firms in airports. According to the GAO, when they ran covert tests to smuggle aboard bomb components, the "GAO did not notice any difference between the performance of private screeners and transportation security officers during our tests."
http://gao.gov/assets/120/118618.pdf

Essentially, they are both useless. I do believe there needs to be general security and checks, but I also agree that the current setup is far too invasive and wouldn't do squat to prevent an extremely determined terrorist.

I'll see your 5 year old article and raise you with a recent one of my own that says private firms are both cheaper and more effective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/bu...pagewanted=all


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Book releases on Monday. I might just get it.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I'll see your 5 year old article and raise you with a recent one of my own that says private firms are both cheaper and more effective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/bu...pagewanted=all

I'd suggest you reread that article. It says absolutely nothing about being more effective and in no way counters what the GAO study said. That Republican study said more efficient. Big difference. Efficiency, as in getting more people through, has nothing to do with how effective they are. Then they talk about cutting the number of screeners and increasing the number of passengers a screener is responsible for, and they get all the saving simply by cutting away about a third of the screeners.

My assertion is simply that I don't think replacing one group with another solves anything. The real problems are the invasive searches and pointless rules. Neither would work very well when it comes to a determined terrorist, so I see no reason to play this game. Abolish the TSA? I have no problems with that since it is part of the Bush-era clampdown on us. If you want to return security responsibility to airports, I can get behind that. But just replacing TSA screeners with private screeners, but under the TSA umbrella, is a stupid waste of time and nothing but a "gotcha" political game.

In the article he says, "I know they perform better." I will agree that doesn't distinguish between more effective or more efficient.

Way to throw a jab at Bush for a bill that passed with 100% approval in the Senate. I guess I forgot about the day we had 100 GWBs, or even 100 repubs for that matter, in the Senate. Regardless the TSA isn't the only overfunded, overhyped, and underperforming government program he discusses.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

I guess my overarching point is when you see how much the government already fucks up, then see that their solution to TE initial fuck up is to throw more money and failed rules at the problem, it gives me reason to doubt expansion of the government into other areas. Or even that if we did expand it that it would be to TE benefit to the average citizen. Does that mean I think the only answer is to deregulate everything? Of course not, but if you had an employee/department at your company that was already screwing up the responsibility they have would your solution be to put them in charge of more stuff, or to tell them to fix their screwups first? Why should we expect less of the government?


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Does he discuss the drug war? I'd say that's the worst apart from turning us into sheep.