You see Steve believes that we need to help the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free and this is best done by people richer than him paying more of their money with no real need for the middle or lower classes to get involved. However he doesn't seem to be in favor of dividing all the world's wealth by the population of the world because then that would effect him. Somehow poor South American < poor American. (Better put, solution that he thinks doesn't effect him > solution that does effect him. Even though the rich that he wants to tax more will just fire some more poor people or pass on these new taxes to people like Steve)

They already do. Not just in terms of tax revenue, but also with jobs, innovation, and investments.


A) Infrastructure improvements such as? Protecting private property? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

B) My reading comprehension skills must be off today, because I'm not getting what you're saying here.

Here's your perfect world then...

Average income worldwide is $7,000 - The Boston Globe

Or in your utopia will you still be making whatever you make now? (My guess is nowhere close to 7K) Somehow you don't see that in the world's view you are one of the elite rich. If you make 50K a year you are in the top 1% of the world's population, if you make 100K you are in the top 0.5%. So who exactly are these super rich you bitch about all the time? That's right it isn't based in reality it is just anyone that makes more than you do. It's envy, pure and simple.

When did national borders cease to exist?

Whatever. I don't rag on you and DT's liberal views but you don't talk the complete communist nonsense he does. If he really wants everyone equal he can't claim, but only in America where I still would be OK and not poor like those Asians or Africans. What a load of shit and I hope you see through it as well.

This.

Now, I'm not with Steve in how much the upper and middle classes have to pay. However, I do think the whining that they have to pay more (esp that they may have to pay 40% on anything above $350k) is patently absurd since they are the ones that benefit the most from the system. I mean how would they like to live in something like a sub-Saharan African state where the rich are a handful of connected people who are SUPER rich and everyone else in incredibly poor relatively and exists for the rich's benefit?

I think we all know that this is a dishonest argument. If income was spread equally across the world many things would be different, not least of which would be cost of living. Supply and demand alone would reduce the price of most goods and services.

Yes, the part that the free-marketers get right is pointing out that the entrepreneurial rich are the ones who have helped turn America into the world's greatest economy. But the nuance they miss is that what has made America great is not that our entrepreneurs have more gumption than those in the rest of the world, and the rest of history. It's that we've created a society that enables them, where most societies have not, and still do not. It's our intellectual property laws among many other such inventions that have turned them into gears in such a great machine. And so while yes it's important and accurate to point out the importance of entrepreneurs, including very successful ones, it's not exactly accurate to say that they owe nothing to the system. The same person placed in most anywhere else in the world would not be a success, and both they and the society would suffer. We should be happy to have them here, and they should be happy to pay higher taxes to enjoy magnitudes more success than they could anywhere else in time or space.

Sorry, I guess this probably isn't polarizing enough for America today.

Yes, I believe by using that same analysis the "equal" cost of living is something like $9,000.

Has anyone posted this? I may have missed it, but it should interest y'all

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Last time I checked, WE ALL use those things. We all benefit from this things. And last time I checked, the successful already pay a hell of a lot more taxes.

The world is a different place. People and capital are mobile. You can tax the rich all you want and put in place all the social programs you want, but the successful, businesses, and capital will allocate their resources to those locations that benefit them the most.

For intellectual laws, don't we pay for those things through filing fees, lawyers to enforce it (such as paying our lawyer to go after violators). It's not like it is stopping China from violating them.

Why are those not concerned with things like defecits and government spending even concerned about tax rates at all? I have no problem with clinton-era tax rates but what exactly are we depriving ourselves of by not having them? Why is this the one and only area stevebollea types are suddenly concerned about the bottom line and what our country can afford?

Let's just cut the tax rate to 0% then! Cheney said himself that deficits don't matter.

Sometimes I wonder why not.

Perhaps there's just different lines where people become concerned about such things.

Dola...it's just funny to hear all these liberals this week saying "we can't afford" the bush tax cuts. Huh? Just as funny as republicans spouting off about fiscal responsibilty and then supporting wars and their own pet projects and being responsible for even more runaway spending (while holding firm that tax hikes shouldn't be involved in paying for all this)

1) All taxes are different. Stick with the one we are talking about, federal income taxes. If you want to debate state or property taxes, we can. That's just a different discussion.

2) So basically you're saying we all pay for education? Sounds good to me. A corporation pays corporate taxes. A CEO doesn't pay corporate taxes, he'll pay income and capital gains taxes.

3) The European rich have moved to tax-friendly nations such as the UK (for non-Britain nationals), Monaco, Channel Islands, Switzerland, Barbados, and even other places in the Middle East (Dubai is a prime example) and Singapore.

Bingo! And it isn't like there is a 90% tax proposed (which, btw, the was the highest tax level in the 1950s). The idea is that the rich should be slighly more than the middle class, who should pay slightly more than the poor, etc, because they've benefited from the societal institutions put in place. Therefore a large product (if not all of it) is partially the result of a beneficial social programs designated to foster innovation and protect private property.

And yes, successful business and capital will orient themselves to places that benefit them the most, which is why industries that rely on high labor productivity will flock to Western countries with vast social networks, which result in things like a highly educated workforce and low social unrest (if people are somewhat taken care of, they tend not to get all violent and stuff - for the most part).

It wasn't as if a 39% top income tax rate scared internet companies out of the United States in the 1990s.

WTF!?!?!?

How'd I get brought into this??

I put you with JPhillips on the list of reasonable liberals who I happen to disagree with. I understand your points of view but don't share them. Stevebollea's arguments all come down to class envy. I feel like he must of gotten picked on by a rich kid when he was little or something.

It may just be me, but I think someone who lives off welfare as their entire income may just benefit more from society than the rich do.

It's kinda hard to live off welfare as your entire income... well, at least for a sustained period of time. Unemployment doesn't last forever.

And, as someone who is middle class, I feel that I've probably benefited more than my friends who are poor. I've had great public schools, a wonderful public college, and a substantial amount of federal loans to get me a law degree from a private school, and have been able to parlay that into a comfortable lifestyle.

Aaah okay. Cool. I must have misunderstood. I thought you were putting me in the other group. :D

It is MUCH easier than you would suspect. Perhaps growing up middle class you haven't seen it as much.

I've known people who lived off unemployment. It tends to have a timeline until it ends.

Unemployment, yes. Government assistance? Much easier.

How much do you feel parenting plays a role in your education?

So the Philly Fed is predicting 9.3% unemployment for 2011 and 8.7% for 2012.

Good thing we're not going to foolishly spend any money putting people to work.

Yeah those predictions are always so historically accurate. They predicted this crisis back in 2007 right?

Here is some reading from just a few years ago. Glad the unemployment capped at 8%. :rolleyes:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

What percentage of people in the US are "unsuccessful"? how much would your more gov't control of society lower the unsuccessful rate? at what cost?

here are 3 gov't truths i give my students, i am amazed you preach against each one:
1. Everything is a trade-off. The more equal you make society the more rights you give up
2. The more centralized the government the less capacity it has to change and adapt to individual needs
3. Economic equality = more government control = less motivation/ incentive

Federal Reserve predictions and White House predictions are not the same. Do you really want to argue that unemployment is going to be significantly better than that in two years?

Those truths seems to lead to an end point where maximum inequality = maximum freedom. Would we really be more free if one person controlled 99% of the nation's wealth?

No I am actually arguing the exact opposite. I guess I didn't understand your initial post, I thought you were saying those numbers were a good sign.

Obviously a decent amount. However, also obviously, good schools produce better education than bad schools. Having good pro-education parents and bad schools wouldn't necessarily be better than bad pro-education parents and good schools.

And it seems quite harsh to condemn a child to a less than optimal future simply because their parents didn't value education. Though it appears US society likes to do that sometimes (which is why social mobility is far less than we assume... and less these days than in European countries, IIRC).

Yawn.

Sarcasm is a tool best used sparingly.

I'm pretty sure that isn't what he was saying.

Not if your name is HyperBollea.

But if any reduction in inequality leads to reduced freedom that's the end point.

Oh, it's not an either/or. the most important part of the truths is "everything is a trade off." they absolutely could be written in the reverse. i chose to put them in that language because steve seems to not understand what is given up in order to reach his goal.

The way you stated them they certainly are either or propositions.

I believe in FDR's four freedoms, so I don't think freedom is simply limited to government action. How free can you be if you can't afford food and shelter?

If everyone hates the "great strip mall/big box homogeneous blob large chunks" of the US then why does everyone shop there?

I generally find them to be of great convenience.

what's funny is all those things were "fixed" by a system that you think needs to be replaced

LOL - too funny

So now the GOP is going to block ratification of the new START treaty. Doesn't matter that the military sees it as essential, previous Defense Secs see it as essential, previous Secs of State see it as essential, foreign policy types of both parties see it as essential, no the important thing is to not let Obama achieve anything.

If the damn Democrats could just get on message like this it would totally backfire. Unfortunately I have no faith in the party as a whole to define such a coherent message...

I liked it better when it was called SALT.

I know you're being funny, but I feel the need to point out that START is much better than SALT.

Strategic Arms Reduction is far better than Strategic Arms Limitation.

Yes, I was being funny, but, I thought that SALT also had a reduction provision in it as well?

I certainly wouldn't mind the political hammer, but this is about a hell of a lot more than politics. Obama has already capitulated to all of Kyl's demand and he still backs out so as to not give Obama a victory. It's infuriating that the GOP is willing to play a fucking game with a critical component of our security.

Country first, bitches.

A childrens book written by Obama is being released this week. In it a father talks about Americans that have inspired him. One of the Americans is Sitting Bull. Fox News ran the following headline:


I have to admit, that is so over the top I find it funny.

What's the over/under on Fox fans thinking that headline has something to do with his recent trip over to asia?

Good thing we aren't still involved in Indian wars. Which side would Obama take?

Aren't we currently one of the biggest spenders on education per student in the world right now? What do you define as a "bad" school"? Test scores? Behavior? Teacher staffing and quality (Which I guess is another question of how you measure that)?

You do realize the stuff you want has to be paid for somehow? Europe is starting to feel of the pain of the social benefits that you want us to get.

Just because it "works" in Europe, doesn't mean it's going to work here. Europe has far more small businesses/family owned shops due to better public transportation and smaller communities than how cities and towns here in the US are designed. I go to Costco because it's convenient. I go to Safeway because it's cheaper and convenient. Very very very few places that I've lived here where I could just walk a couple of blocks and buy groceries or go shopping and guess what, those towns had less than 3,000 people and had a lack of variety that a chain store could provide.

As Galaxy said, we are now seeing the long term effects of the Euro style that you crave Steve. Ireland is about to declare bankruptcy and Portugal may be next and Greece has been fucked for the last couple of years. A sensible solution would probably be some hybrid of our system and the Euro system.

As for a small loss of freedom, I quote Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I do think that as the financial markets get more and more complicated, a lot of this wealth that we see is not real. It's fake as monopoly money.

Take financial derivatives for example. It's taking individual mortgages and folding spindling and mutilating them into some kind of new bond markets (which is at the heart of the current problems in the foreclosure market), where you can't tell who actually owns a mortgage because it's been transferred and chopped up so many times that there's no clear title.

The whole thing is so freaking tangled up that it desperately needs to be untangled in the worst possible way, or we'll go right back to the situation we're in already. However, if we did it the most expeditious way possible (by forcing banks to take responsibility for the bad paper they issued), we'd be right back where we started, if not worse.

It sucks, it absolutely does, and it's killing hundreds of thousands of families future, but the only thing may be to say "Ok.. we're going to get out of this mess by the most expeditious way possible, despite the real cost it has", but find away to restrict the banks and the derivative markets from ever getting us in this market.

Of course, I think the other way that we could resolve this is to start throwing bank executives (and I'm not just talking about the "Executive Vice President" auto-signers) in jails, specifically for mortgage frauds in claiming they own mortgages that they do not have clear title.

It won't change until the people in charge start going to prison.

Or assassinations.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'm all for bringing back tar and feathers.

Today:

November Marks Native American Heritage Month - Native Americans - Fox Nation

They aren't even trying anymore.

That would imply that they were trying to begin with. :)

How about the stocks and the pillory? Gotta go with the classics, I'd think.. (and no, I'm not being serious)

Actually I like the tar and feather idea much better. I don't believe in the death penalty.

Color me surprised that none of those ass holes on Wall Street have been assassinated yet, though.

I'm with guys as well. Nothing is going to change until there is some serious accountability for those people.

I should say this: I am not putting ALL the blame for this mess on the banks. People have to live within their means, and make rational judgements about twhat they can afford.

Everyone thought that the bubble was never going to pop, that it would turn into a perpetual money-making machine. It never is, and it never will be.

I'm specifically targetting the banks for taking a bad issue and spinning it completely out of control with their own personal set of greed, and now their furious backpedaling to get out of the mess THEY made (with hundreds of thousands of homes subject to foreclosure where there is no clear title), while insisting that the people "suck it up". It's called Hypocrisy.

Wait, Michael Douglas is still alive?

This has nothing to do with Obama, but it's a really spectacular government corruption story out of Massachusetts this week. The entire probation office was basically running a scam - legislators overfunded the department, who in exchange, guaranteed that almost every department job opening would be filled by a legislator relative/friend/connetectee (and it didn't matter if the "applicant" was unqualified, or a felon). Thousands of phony interviews were conducted for jobs that were already paid for and filled.

Whatever government is, big or small, liberal or conservative, these are the things that scare me, when government becomes a monster that just grows and feeds off of itself to sole the benefit of those in power, at the expense of the public.

SJC orders probation overhaul as report finds rampant fraud - The Boston Globe

And yet the voters will vote these same legislators back into office simply because they like the letter next to their name.

+1,000,000

Greyroofoo...nothing but net.

In my in-laws county, the prosecuting attorney and a judge ran for the others office. Its a sparsely populated county, so they ran unopposed. The local paper wrote an editorial asking for people to vote for John Adams.
The guys are double dipping the pension plan. Double the fun. They both won, but the prosecuting attorney race had 900+ write in votes.

Crazy times.

If he really thinks he stands a chance, he's an ass. What hubris.

TRENDING: Trump under ‘pressure’ for 2012 run – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Stop keepin whitey down!

Certainly explains a lot about the Tea Party.

Geez what is wrong with this country?

Before you know it, white people will only count as 3/5 of a person. Better put down those uppity minorities before it is too late!

Wow. Just.........wow.

Interesting info on why McCain couldn't pick Lieberman.

Maybe he doesn't have a choice politically, but nice to see Obama come out and say that the TSA procedures were necessary. That does seem to have calmed the hysteria somewhat, we'll see if it picks back up again towards Thanksgiving.

The guy is privy to a lot more information than us, and while Bush/Cheney would likely be accused of some weird psychological motivation for supporting the TSA procedures, it's not as easy to make such accusations against Obama.

What is harder to do is make the case that the TSA is staying one step ahead of the terrorists, which is what the head of the TSA has been saying. Every change in their policy has been in response to terrorist activity. That equates to being one step behind.

We can debate on how necessary the TSA is, but the truth is that it serves more as security theater than real security. I'm not aware of the TSA catching any terrorists yet. But they sure have hassled a lot of people and confiscated a lot of property that they later sold. I guess that probably hurt the terrorists a lot, in some convoluted way that I cannot figure out.

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

I'm positive you don't have all the info on what TSA procedures are based on, what terrorist plans were thwarted, etc.

And in a society, our freedom IS compromised outside of prison, every day, it always has been.

I know people love that Ben Franklin quote, but I think they take it a little to literally.

Criminal laws take away your freedom. Potential imprisonment takes away your freedom. Gun control laws take away your freedom. Yet, everybody, including Ben Franklin, understands that in a society, you do have to give up a little freedom to gain a little security. He did it in his society and we do it in ours. It's just a matter of lines. And airline security is such a non-invasive, minimal kind of security, for the type of thing it tries to protect. There are people who will have a problem with ANY authority, regardless of the circumstance. They don't want to be searched for 2 seconds, or pulled over by a cop, or anything. The fact that THIS is where the battle lines are drawn though, does put things in perspective for me though, how people have completely taken REAL rights for granted.

I think Dwight Eisenhower may have a little better perspective but nice try.

Here's a couple more for you...

The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

I travel alot in Atlanta Hartsfield (probably one of the worse), been full body scanned, been patted down etc. I am not sure what the big deal is.

I am sure there are some bad incidents (breast milk, the cancer bladder incident etc.) but all in all, not too inefficient for the vast majority of travelers.

Of course. But we're talking about security screening that takes seconds, in a controlled, regulated area. Not a late-night neighborhood sweep of homes for weapons. Not even police using racial profiling to stop people in their cars.

Your civil liberties simply are not as powerful when the harm is inconvenience, and when there's a legitimate government justification.

Why do you think Obama lives to inconvenience you by a few minutes or less at airports? What's his real agenda here?

Government abuses are plentiful and there's plenty of other places to fight this battle. The fact that THIS is the place where we make our stand is just kind of silly, really, and kind of minimizes any civil liberties movement. People just don't like being told what to do, and they disguise this as some kind of proud "civil liberties" cause.

Why is this so much more important than rampant government fraud revealed in Massachusetts this week? Steal billions, ya, that's unfortunate, but HAVE A STERN TONE AND DELAY ME FOR THIRTY SECONDS IN LINE AND I WILL GO BEN FRANKLIN ON YOUR ASS.

I never blamed this on Obama. This is the enitre government the past 10 years or so. It is out of control. So the usual response will be in the scheme of things who cares about the "small" TSA budget of billions? OK, how about the entire wargame that is bankrupting this country? They are out of control fighting the generic enemy of terror. Just like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, who could be against the war on terror?

Well I would love to install a $10,000 security system for my house and build a $5000 fence around my property and hire a $40,000 a year security guard to watch my property. It will make me and my family more secure. But guess what? I can't fucking afford it. And this country can't afford this nonsense. I don't understand why we continue to put our heads in the sand and argue over earmarks or even bigger items health care when compared to the defense budget are nothing. There is the elephant in the corner of the room that is the United States World Empire. We are going to go broke, what is happening in Europe isn't something that can never happen here.

Since this is a thread about Obama, I'll bring it back there. He says these new procedures are necessary. From the rest of your post, it's clear you think that's a lie. So what's the agenda here from his perspective?

I can understand being concerned about the government wastefulness and corruption within TSA, that's definitely something worth getting annoyed about. I thought you were more complaining about the long lines/people telling you what to do at airports, which is the usual shitstorm on this issue. But I certainly won't disagree with you on the wastefulness and corruption.

Though, whatever airlines security is, it's still WAY, WAY, WAY, less than "$5000 fence around my property and hire a $40,000 a year security guard to watch my property" kind of security. That's just not happening. There's a body scan, and if you don't like that, a frisk.

I believe in a system where United Airlines can have guys stick their hands down my pants and Southwest Airlines can have people take body scans of me and American Airlines can do the "2008" screening. Each airline will spend their own money and the people that are scared of terror can fly with the airline that does patdowns. If American's plane goes down they go out of business, no government bailout. If United's business practices lose them customers maybe they stop with the patdowns. Why is the government involved in keeping us safe here but not in other places? Why are there no full body scans on buses or cruise liners? Unfortunatly maybe that's coming. One can only hope not, I don't want to live in a society where I can full body scanned before a Cardinal's game or my wife gets felt up before she goes in to watch a play. Don't know what makes the airplanes so special. The only answer I can come up with is guilt over fucking up on 9-11.

My example was that the security for my house would be about half my yearly income. That is about what the outragous bloated defense budget is, no?

Yes, but obviously that isn't all airline screening.

If you want to talk about bloated military spending you'll get no disagreement from me. That's just the Republicans' version of the Democratic corruption for Mass this week (bloat a budget, pay off connected corporations and political contributors).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Terrorists have been targeting airplanes and airports long before 9/11.

Agree it isn't all airline screening. But again that is another 5-10 billion (don't know the exact number) piece of the pie. Homeland security? Another 50 billion. The shit adds up. I don't want to see anyone die from terrorism, I doubt anyone does, but it's a little ridiculous isn't it? We could mandate a 40 MPH federal speed limit plus helmets and extra padding in every car. We don't, instead we except the risks of highway driving. Doesn't the airline oversecurity seem a bit much?

OK. So what?

Risk of Death from Various Recreational Drugs, Compared to Other Activities/Exposures
1 in 10 - Extremely High
•Accident/Injury: Russian Roulette

1 in 100 - Very, High
•Drug Use: Tobacco, Methadone, Injecting •Leisure Activity: BASE Jumping, Serious Climbing, Grand Prix Racing
•Disease/Illness: Heart Disease, Cancer, Respiratory Disease
•Accident/Injury: Space Travel
•Other: Deep Sea Fishing

1 in 1,000 - Quite, High
•Drug Use: Heroin, Morphine, Barbiturates, Alcohol
•Leisure Activity: Hang Gliding, Parachuting, Motorbike Racing, Climbing
•Disease/Illness : Hypothermia, etc., Mental Disorders, Strokes, Prostate Cancer
•Accident/Injury: Violence (all), Sudden Infant Death, Hospitals (babies), Shaking (babies)
•Other: Pollution, White Asbestos, Offshore Oil Work, Mining

1 in 10,000 - Medium
•Drug Use: Solvents, Benzodiazepines, Dextropropoxy, Dihydrocodeine
•Leisure Activity: Motor Sports**, Water Sports***, Mountain Hiking, Canoeing
•Disease/Illness : Diabetes, Leukemia, Influenza, Skin Cancer
•Accident/Injury: Suicide, Falls, Road Travel/Use, Helicopter travel, GA**** by dentist
•Other: Construction Work, Farming/Agriculture, Police Custody, Giving Birth (overall)

1 in, 100,000 - Quite Low
•Drug Use: Ecstasy/MDMA, Amphetamine, Cocaine, GHB, Prescription Drugs, Analgesics, Contraceptive Pill
•Leisure Activity: Dance Parties, Fighting Sports, Snow Sports, Soccer & Rugby, DIY (home), Sports Spectator
•Disease/Illness : Meningitis, HIV/AIDS, Asthma, Sudden Death Syndrome, Food Poisoning, Cervical Cancer
•Accident/Injury: Airplane Travel, Rail Travel, etc., Stairs (falling), Eating (Choking), Electrocution, Drowning, Fires
•Other: Child Abuse, Refusal of Int. Care, Manufacturing (cars), Passive Smoking, X-rays, Machinery, Homicide, Guns

1 in , 1 million - Very Low
•Drug Use: LSD (acid), Mushrooms, Antibiotics, Viagra
•Leisure Activity: Fairground Rides, Jogging, Swimming, Riding Sports
•Disease/Illness : Legionnaire's, Food Allergies
•Accident/Injury: Falling out of bed, Clothing Fires, Boilers/Heaters, Police Cars, Toys
•Other: Clerical/Office work, Vaccination

1 in 10 million - Extremely Low
•Drug Use: Herbal Cannabis, Cannabis Resin, Amyl Nitrates
•Leisure Activity: Indoor Sports, Playgrounds, Gymnasiums
•Disease/Illness : CJD (BSE), Toxic Shock Synd.
•Accident/Injury: Insects, Dogs, Alarm Clocks, Lightening
•Other: Nuclear Radiation, Sexual Intercourse

1 in 100 million - Minimal
•Drug Use: Caffeine, Khat, Nitrous Oxide, Ketamine, DMT
•Leisure Activity: Table Games, Computer Games, Masturbation
•Disease/Illness: Bubonic Plague, Smallpox, Leprosy
•Accident/Injury: Snakes, Birds, Cats, Sharks, Earthquakes
•Other: State Executions, Spontaneous Combustion, UFOs/Aliens

I'm just not buying some of those numbers, but it's an amusing list (looks like it's from some drug website since they are separating out parts of cannabis).

1 in 100 who deap sea fish or base jump die? Is this from chronically doing these things or one per incident?

So, of the 1 in 100 million: Which of us is going to die from computer games, masturbation, leprosy, sharks, ufo, spontaneous human combustion... or earthquakes

(Wait- WTF? Doesn't the 200K dead from the EQ in Haiti this year pretty much blow that one out of the water? I mean, to be 1 in 100 million, there would have to have been 20 trillion people living on earth, right? Maybe I'm a couple 0s off, but it's more than have ever lived before. And it's not even the deadliest EQ ever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...akes_on_record)

SI

Airline travel is INSANELY safe from all threats, agreed, but the national consequences of a single mixup is a lot greater, on a national level, then an individual dying from electrocution or drowning.

And drowning is rare, but you're still an idiot not to wear a lifejacket. And that's basically the equivalent of modern airlines screening. Are we even screening all checked bags yet?

Yeah, I don't know I just linked the first site that had death probabilities on it. Plus I thought it was funny when the x-rays were on the same line. I think it was showing the ingnorance of the drug war. It's not like panerd is going before a congressional panel or anything. We all know that the odds of an airline hijacking death are really really low, right? It would suck to have a loved one die in one but I think I would miss my family from a car accident death, drowning, or shooting just as much.

I know, I'm just screwing with you on the list. I agree with you on this topic about as much as we agree on anything.

As a country, or at least the controlling portion of it, have decided to spend a disproportionately high amount of money and "freedom" on this particular threat due to 9/11. We're ok with 33K automobile fatalities last year (it's actually down from the 40K we averaged most of the decade because the economy has caused us to travel less miles)- and we won't "hassle" people with slower speed limits or more safety requirements. But one incident one year with 3K dead and we throw proportional response out the window because of the "flashiness" of the incident.

Also, I think there's more of a complication to the example of "Southwest can have X security, United has Y security, and American has Z security" because you're playing small financial probabilities with huge, long odds that is the equivalent of the lottery (wherein buying 10 tickets versus 1 does increase your chance of winning a 1 in 100M lottery 10x but doesn't significantly impact it). Also, there are issues with the security community sharing various levels with different airlines in such a scenario. And, really, at the end of the day- the biggest problem is that there is so little competition in the airline industry: it's not hundreds of businesses whose supply and demand asymptote reaches perfect competition, but an industry ruled by a 4~8 headed oligopoly where all but a couple of fringe players are willing to match each other in price and service so there is no true competition at all.

SI

So, they had people taking their shoes off before Richard Reid (aka the shoe bomber)? They were checking everybody's groins before "the underwear bomber" happened? They didn't change restrictions on fluids after the uncovering of the British bomb plot involving liquids? There is a record that supports my view of TSA being one step behind, rather than your view that they somehow are coming up with these ahead of the plots being uncovered. Of course, I am willing to read any links you have that prove otherwise.

Are you also alleging that the plots thwarted by the TSA are the ones being kept secret? When the FBI busts it up, it makes the press. When the TSA busts one in the airport, amongst all the civilians, it doesn't make it to the media at all? I assert that this is a highly unlikely scenario.

I am not saying that we need to get rid of the TSA. That's a different debate entirely. However, I am surprised that there is really any debate about the TSA being security theater.

So if I want to interpret panerd's table in an outlandish way,

Masturbation is just as dangerous as leprosy and earthquakes and aliens???

Just as likely to kill you. You might interpret that as so unlikely to happen that you need not worry about it in your daily life.