danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The answer is "yes," I would pay 10X as much to have it done better.

Of course you would. Would that be by paying an extra $70 per flight, or adding about $55M to Federal spending and the deficit?

Today must be your day to be a donkey's hind end. Then again, seems just about every day.

No, I think everyone should foot their own bill. Thanks.

Btw, I'd pay for my own background check so that I could fly without x-ray, taking my shoes off, or being frisked like a felon.

You may not want to admit it, statist that you are, but our system is worthless.

The border quip was about how useless the current TSA is. Have you flown to the States since they took root? Horrendous. Their answer to every blip on the screen is to force us to remove more clothing.

I flew before and after. The main thing I realised was that JFK was alway terrible, and SFO is really nice. I'll be flying over again next year, to see what it's like at New Orleans (and whichever hub we need to go through, probably Chicago).

Try Newark. Really. It's great. You'll love it.

Doctor Fate wrote:Try Newark. Really. It's great. You'll love it.

I feel obligated to make sure that you know that Fate is joking.

Doctor Fate wrote:If law enforcement followed the model of the TSA, we would live in a police state. They are ham-fisted and have no clue what they should actually be doing. TSA exists to annoy people, not to stop terrorism.

I think every American, regardless of politics, would agree with this. Perhaps the start of common ground?

fate

El Al. How do they do it? Answer: faster, better, and less intrusively

Every El Al plane has an armoured cockpit door, locked , before anyone boards. That alone would stop a lot of trouble.
Besides adding this, Fate you're right about airport security.
It's pretty stupid and could certainly be conducted with greater efficiency and professionalism. Of course that would take extensive training, and much greater rates of pay to ensure you keep highly trained staff. None of that goes along with the current models for running airports or airlines....

fate

Back on topic, a study to refute a study

And yet the "study" does nothing of the kind. It actually reinforces Keyenes theory.(As it does every time someone looks at this same historical data.)
When federal spending reached its apex employment was, with a very slight lag, at its highest....and after a period of high employment and growth the economy was able to generate jobs as the government laid people off... The very ideal of Keynes prophisied effect.
Its just that your "study" reprises the tired old notion of saying that becasue the govenrment spent a dollar in a war it was different then spending a dollar at any other time. A person "hired" to sail a ship or drive a tank has a job. The same way that they would have a job if they were hired to pave a road or repair a building....
Well, actually, the second investment would leave a legacy, and improve the countries infrastructure and therefore its business environment... ... Freedom I suppose being the very important legacy of the WWII (maybe not WWI so much....)
But the point is your "study" is just a recitation of the fact that it took an inordinate amount of federal money to end the Depression. And that stimulus has to be significant enough to actually prime the economic pump. So your study does nothing but reinforce the notion that the stimulus in Europe was cut off way too soon, and replaced with a damaging austerity program. And that the Stimulus in the US wasn't big enough or long enough to have the effect that the investment required to fight WWII had in reversing the Great Depression.
A bucks a buck Fate....
How or why the government spent it to create employment doesn't matter to an examination of the effect of spending at that level.
Imagine that the nation is an obese man who needs to lose weight. He goes on a strict regimen of dieting to only 1400 calories a day and regular exercise....and loses weight.
His twin obese brother is stranded on a desert island and only manages to consume 1400 calories a day because thats all the food he can catch or find. He also loses weight.
The did the same thing for different reasons with the same effect.
If there werre no WWII, but FDR managed to get support for a massive investment in building infrastructure that hired the same number of people and spent the same amount of money the same effect would have happened.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Try Newark. Really. It's great. You'll love it.

I feel obligated to make sure that you know that Fate is joking.

I am unmasked!

Worst airport I've ever been in. By far.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:If law enforcement followed the model of the TSA, we would live in a police state. They are ham-fisted and have no clue what they should actually be doing. TSA exists to annoy people, not to stop terrorism.

I think every American, regardless of politics, would agree with this. Perhaps the start of common ground?

All I can say is "YES!!!"

rickyp wrote:fate

El Al. How do they do it? Answer: faster, better, and less intrusively

Every El Al plane has an armoured @#$! door, locked , before anyone boards. That alone would stop a lot of trouble.
Besides adding this, Fate you're right about airport security.
It's pretty stupid and could certainly be conducted with greater efficiency and professionalism. Of course that would take extensive training, and much greater rates of pay to ensure you keep highly trained staff. None of that goes along with the current models for running airports or airlines....

But, that's precisely the point. Putting a bunch of warm bodies in uniforms in an airport is not security in and of itself.

Just like building a massive fence isn't 'sealing the border'?

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Try Newark. Really. It's great. You'll love it.

I feel obligated to make sure that you know that Fate is joking.

I am unmasked!

Worst airport I've ever been in. By far.

Agreed. Hands down, nolo contendere...

It being in NJ gave a bit of a clue...

But my point was I didn't really notice that much of a difference between before and after, or that at least any change was in line with changes at UK airports.

danivon wrote:Just like building a massive fence isn't 'sealing the border'?

Just like giving back door amnesty isn't obeying the Constitution?

What part of the Constitution restricts the free movement of people?

The part about "common defense". (borders, perhaps?)

danivon wrote:What part of the Constitution restricts the free movement of people?

What is a nation without borders?

What is an oath that a President is free to discard?