Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris voter but frankly I would not be disappointed to see the end of TSA security theater.

It’s difficult to staff tsa anyway. So why not reduce it and have tsa focus on identifying and securing against threats in a more holistic way instead of the purgatory we are all living through.

The only people benefiting are the producers of the scanners. I suspect the dogs do a better job and they are much cuter to watch work.

It doesn't matter what we think about theater. All other countries follow suit. Would you accept an international flight from a country with more lax standards.

It can be privatized, sure, but until we decide to not follow the same procedures globally, we are stuck with the current screening.

The US sets the standard. Whatever we say to do goes.

LOL. At the rate we’re going, not for long.

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering, if we eliminate everything that helps citizens (fema, tsa, medicaid, medicare, and so on), what exactly are we paying taxes for?

So they can funnel our taxes into their bank accounts instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.


The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

Yeah, it is so dumb to not check people BEFORE they enter the airport.

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

I don't know this as a fact but it appears that the primary qualification for a TSA agent is that no one with an IQ over 60 is eligible to be hired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

Where were you when we had to pay all those billions to bail out the airline industry after 9/11? Do you know what the price tag on that was? Do you know how much of that price tag was paid by people that don't use airports?

Yes the airlines should have been allows to sink or swim on there own. If they go tits up, someone will but the assets at 10 cent on the dollar and be up in running in a week. Remember XM Radio?

Yes it merged with Sirius radio. I listen to it daily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

Where were you when we had to pay all those billions to bail out the airline industry after 9/11? Do you know what the price tag on that was? Do you know how much of that price tag was paid by people that don't use airports?

Yes the airlines should have been allows to sink or swim on there own. If they go tits up, someone will but the assets at 10 cent on the dollar and be up in running in a week. Remember XM Radio?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris voter but frankly I would not be disappointed to see the end of TSA security theater.

It’s difficult to staff tsa anyway. So why not reduce it and have tsa focus on identifying and securing against threats in a more holistic way instead of the purgatory we are all living through.

The only people benefiting are the producers of the scanners. I suspect the dogs do a better job and they are much cuter to watch work.

It doesn't matter what we think about theater. All other countries follow suit. Would you accept an international flight from a country with more lax standards.

It can be privatized, sure, but until we decide to not follow the same procedures globally, we are stuck with the current screening.

The US sets the standard. Whatever we say to do goes.

Anonymous wrote:Harris voter but frankly I would not be disappointed to see the end of TSA security theater.

It’s difficult to staff tsa anyway. So why not reduce it and have tsa focus on identifying and securing against threats in a more holistic way instead of the purgatory we are all living through.

The only people benefiting are the producers of the scanners. I suspect the dogs do a better job and they are much cuter to watch work.

It doesn't matter what we think about theater. All other countries follow suit. Would you accept an international flight from a country with more lax standards.

It can be privatized, sure, but until we decide to not follow the same procedures globally, we are stuck with the current screening.

Harris voter but frankly I would not be disappointed to see the end of TSA security theater.

It’s difficult to staff tsa anyway. So why not reduce it and have tsa focus on identifying and securing against threats in a more holistic way instead of the purgatory we are all living through.

The only people benefiting are the producers of the scanners. I suspect the dogs do a better job and they are much cuter to watch work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

So people flying into your city, spending money on the economy, booking hotels, eating at restaurants, possibly renting a car, and so on...basically helping the local economy, you would rather not spend a minuscule amount of tax dollars to have a functioning airport which people feel safe flying into/out of than to reap the economic benefit and jobs created by having a functioning airport? That't not even including the people who work at the actual airport- janitors, restaurants, shops, air traffic control, maintenance, baggage handlers, the list goes on. Maybe those flying are wealthy, maybe they are business travelers, maybe this is a special occasion travel, who knows. Either way, it isn't just rich people departing your city but also people coming to and working at the airport. Otherwise, how do you split out the economic benefits to those who decided to pay airport taxes and those who didn't? Also note, people who fly are already paying more when they book the tickets as a number of security fees are included and nonnegotiable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

Where were you when we had to pay all those billions to bail out the airline industry after 9/11? Do you know what the price tag on that was? Do you know how much of that price tag was paid by people that don't use airports?

Would have been better for the environment to let them mostly go under.

Well, we had Bush as president to oversee that ginormous boondoggle. Trump has no intention of modeling anything he does on Bush for goodness sake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

Where were you when we had to pay all those billions to bail out the airline industry after 9/11? Do you know what the price tag on that was? Do you know how much of that price tag was paid by people that don't use airports?

Would have been better for the environment to let them mostly go under.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

Where were you when we had to pay all those billions to bail out the airline industry after 9/11? Do you know what the price tag on that was? Do you know how much of that price tag was paid by people that don't use airports?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

What about all of the jobs created by the airline industries in the airports? They should have to help with this TSA funding as well.

No they should not be subsidized by people who do not use the airports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it realistic that these agencies could actually be eliminated?

Let’s be real TSA requires all travelers to line up next to each other. There is no screening before that happens. Someone can come straight in from the street with a bomb or guns and there is a ready made target.

The cost of TSA should be borne by the industry that requires the security but all tax payers. The vast majority of Americans are lucky if they fly once a year. Why should they pay for services they do not use while subsidizing rich frequent flyers?

It would be better if airlines were forced to fund TSA instead of tax payers. Then the people who actually fly could pay for the salaries of those who keep the flights safe.

We don't always get to use everything our tax dollars go to.

Like hundreds of billions spent every year on army, that does not do any fighting.