3 ms·
>like those who don't work support higher taxes. Warren Buffet doesn't work? >any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by oppone
by loewenskind 16y ago
>like those who don't work support higher taxes.
Warren Buffet doesn't work?
>any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by opponents for being soft on terrorism.
Has the TSA ever stopped even a single real threat? Ever? If they haven't [1] then how could disbanding them be seen as being soft on terrorism. Nothing they do appears to actually be related to terrorism.
[1] I can't remember anything. All the bombings I've heard about got past them. And I hope no one starts this nonsensical "oh they stop hundreds, we just never hear about because they're so good!" nonsense. These are clearly "bottom of the barrel" workers.
- brc 16y agoThe premise was that nobody but people who work support higher taxes. It was that people who don't work probably support higher taxes, because they get benefits with no cost to them personally. It doesn't matter what the TSA does - the fact is they were invented as a response to terrorism. Thus removing them would be an opportunity for an opposing politician to use the attack of 'being soft on terrorism'. I think the TSA should be abandoned - I shudder to think of the lost actual dollars in funding, as well as the lost productivity of millions of air travelers going through a couple of minutes of invasive screening. As for 'prevention' - many western nations have been victims of Terrorism attacks since 2001 - including the UK and Spain. None of these countries have/use TSA style screening or restrictions. None have had an airline-based terror attack since. That should tell you about the need for the TSA.