8 ms·

Please fund them fully or eliminate them entirely. The inbetween states just suck for everybody.

enraged_camel 10y ago
What will funding them "fully" accomplish? Do you believe that their inability to catch terrorists is a matter of lack of funding?
- ihsw 10y ago
  Terrorism is irrelevant at this point. The wait times must be reduced regardless.
- TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
  This is like the time I asked someone on Reddit what they meant by funding education "fully." They said, "double." So... we'd be a world leader in primary and secondary education again if we just spent twice what we currently do? Well, I guess it was an answer. There are 2 kinds of people: those who think that more money will somehow fix everything (them), and those that think more money will only exacerbate the problems that have brought us to the current point of the debate (me). As a matter of fact, as I write this, I think that may be the single most significant distinction between "conservativism" and "liberalism," as practiced in the US.
  - enjo 10y ago
    >As a matter of fact, as I write this, I think that may be the single most significant distinction between "conservativism" and "liberalism," as practiced in the US. Ugh.. no it's not. That's a massive mischaracterization of liberalism. Liberals, by and large, do not think that throwing additional funding at things (for the sake of additional funds) will improve systems. It's an unfounded and cartoonish view of liberal policy.
    - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
      My point in writing the comment was, in fact, to reduce the argument to one sentence. Don't get me started on who has the absolute stranglehold on political mischaracterization by simplification, when it's the left that screams "racism" every time someone tries to talk about illegal immigration and terrorism, neither of which is a race. That, too, is a "cartoonish" view of the argument. It is the cheapest form of political "debate" to be found today. So I guess oversimplification abounds on both sides.
      - enjo 10y ago
        Well maybe don't be one of the idiots who participates in this nonsense?
  - superuser2 10y ago
    Um, no, liberals and conservatives generally fight over whether the spending should be on defense/security or social welfare. People who want to defund both defense and social welfare (libertarians) are an extremely rare fringe group that's vastly overrepresented on HN but gets basically no votes in the real world.
    - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
      Yeah, well count me as one of those "no" votes. I voted for Barr in '08. Till people get it through their heads to stop "holding their noses" and casting votes on D's and R's, that's all they're ever going to get.
  - Joof 10y ago
    Which is the one that thinks increasing funding helps? Conservatives?
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Ah yes, the thrifty conservatives that led us into the multi trillion dollar boondoggle of the Iraq War.
    - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
      Admittedly, it may not have been clear, but I was referring to social issues. I don't consider the TSA a security issue. That's a work program wrapped up in propaganda.
      - themartorana 10y ago
        If we have to spend money on a work program - and whether I'm for or against that in principal is not relevant here - could it be on something less dehumanizing for everyone paying for it, and less absurdly power-trip-y for the benefactors?
- superuser2 10y ago
  More parallelism in security checkpoints, less waiting in line. The situation for travelers is worse, not better, if the TSA is understaffed but still present.
astrodust 10y ago
They're basically useless. The money would be better spent on agencies like the FBI that can prevent terrorists from ever showing up at airports. As Israeli security experts have said time and time again, if the terrorist gets to the airport it's already too late. Brussels is an unfortunate demonstration of this principle.
- superuser2 10y ago
  They are basically useless, but we still have to go through them to get to our flights. The fewer staff they have, the slower it goes. A sufficiently resourced-starved TSA might "succeed" at preventing attacks on passenger air travel by eliminating passenger air travel altogether. Once lines approach 4, 5 hours people will just drive.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Travelling by train is so ridiculously refreshing. Grab ticket online or at kiosk. Walk on train. Sit down. There's nothing even close in the air travel world. Even Nexus people have to endure the occasional cavity search.
    - superuser2 10y ago
      Isn't Amtrak plagued by horrific delays? The Chicago to NYC time is 20 hours by the schedule, and anecdotally 5-7 more hours waiting for freight trains is pretty common. Don't have real data or personal experience though.
      - giaour 10y ago
        I took a Chicago-NYC train once, and the crew was happy that it was "only" 4 hours late. IIRC, the physical rails are owned by freight lines, so freight gets a higher priority at crossings.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        I guess I'm lucky I don't have to deal with Amtrak then.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
There is no funding them completely, because there's no definition of good enough. Whatever money you throw at them, the system will eat it up and ask for more. It's gotta be killed. Immediately. It's a horribly bad idea that's just sinking its claws in further with each passing day. In fact, the politicians have probably already figured out -- we're stuck with them forever. I just wish they'd come out and be honest about it: infinite money sink, longer and longer lines, security theater, and more bullshit stories. Year after year.

What will funding them "fully" accomplish? Do you believe that their inability to catch terrorists is a matter of lack of funding?

ihsw 10y ago
Terrorism is irrelevant at this point. The wait times must be reduced regardless.
TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
This is like the time I asked someone on Reddit what they meant by funding education "fully." They said, "double." So... we'd be a world leader in primary and secondary education again if we just spent twice what we currently do? Well, I guess it was an answer. There are 2 kinds of people: those who think that more money will somehow fix everything (them), and those that think more money will only exacerbate the problems that have brought us to the current point of the debate (me). As a matter of fact, as I write this, I think that may be the single most significant distinction between "conservativism" and "liberalism," as practiced in the US.
- enjo 10y ago
  >As a matter of fact, as I write this, I think that may be the single most significant distinction between "conservativism" and "liberalism," as practiced in the US. Ugh.. no it's not. That's a massive mischaracterization of liberalism. Liberals, by and large, do not think that throwing additional funding at things (for the sake of additional funds) will improve systems. It's an unfounded and cartoonish view of liberal policy.
  - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
    My point in writing the comment was, in fact, to reduce the argument to one sentence. Don't get me started on who has the absolute stranglehold on political mischaracterization by simplification, when it's the left that screams "racism" every time someone tries to talk about illegal immigration and terrorism, neither of which is a race. That, too, is a "cartoonish" view of the argument. It is the cheapest form of political "debate" to be found today. So I guess oversimplification abounds on both sides.
    - enjo 10y ago
      Well maybe don't be one of the idiots who participates in this nonsense?
- superuser2 10y ago
  Um, no, liberals and conservatives generally fight over whether the spending should be on defense/security or social welfare. People who want to defund both defense and social welfare (libertarians) are an extremely rare fringe group that's vastly overrepresented on HN but gets basically no votes in the real world.
  - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
    Yeah, well count me as one of those "no" votes. I voted for Barr in '08. Till people get it through their heads to stop "holding their noses" and casting votes on D's and R's, that's all they're ever going to get.
- Joof 10y ago
  Which is the one that thinks increasing funding helps? Conservatives?
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Ah yes, the thrifty conservatives that led us into the multi trillion dollar boondoggle of the Iraq War.
  - TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
    Admittedly, it may not have been clear, but I was referring to social issues. I don't consider the TSA a security issue. That's a work program wrapped up in propaganda.
    - themartorana 10y ago
      If we have to spend money on a work program - and whether I'm for or against that in principal is not relevant here - could it be on something less dehumanizing for everyone paying for it, and less absurdly power-trip-y for the benefactors?
superuser2 10y ago
More parallelism in security checkpoints, less waiting in line. The situation for travelers is worse, not better, if the TSA is understaffed but still present.

astrodust 10y ago

They're basically useless. The money would be better spent on agencies like the FBI that can prevent terrorists from ever showing up at airports. As Israeli security experts have said time and time again, if the terrorist gets to the airport it's already too late. Brussels is an unfortunate demonstration of this principle.

superuser2 10y ago
They are basically useless, but we still have to go through them to get to our flights. The fewer staff they have, the slower it goes. A sufficiently resourced-starved TSA might "succeed" at preventing attacks on passenger air travel by eliminating passenger air travel altogether. Once lines approach 4, 5 hours people will just drive.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Travelling by train is so ridiculously refreshing. Grab ticket online or at kiosk. Walk on train. Sit down. There's nothing even close in the air travel world. Even Nexus people have to endure the occasional cavity search.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    Isn't Amtrak plagued by horrific delays? The Chicago to NYC time is 20 hours by the schedule, and anecdotally 5-7 more hours waiting for freight trains is pretty common. Don't have real data or personal experience though.
    - giaour 10y ago
      I took a Chicago-NYC train once, and the crew was happy that it was "only" 4 hours late. IIRC, the physical rails are owned by freight lines, so freight gets a higher priority at crossings.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      I guess I'm lucky I don't have to deal with Amtrak then.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

There is no funding them completely, because there's no definition of good enough. Whatever money you throw at them, the system will eat it up and ask for more. It's gotta be killed. Immediately. It's a horribly bad idea that's just sinking its claws in further with each passing day. In fact, the politicians have probably already figured out -- we're stuck with them forever. I just wish they'd come out and be honest about it: infinite money sink, longer and longer lines, security theater, and more bullshit stories. Year after year.