On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:58:13 GMT, BillyBob wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.

On 2 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:58:13 GMT, BillyBob wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

Are we saying that the government buying goods and services is somehow
better for us than private citizens getting to spend that money
directly? Unless we received appropriate value for the money spent
(and that is a separate discussion) then it was wasted and would have
been better spent by the taxpayers themselves.

I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.

If you assume that spending billions of dollars privately would not
have generated similar secondary benefits (note the word similar not
the same meaning it might not have gone into miniaturization or
computerization but might have resulted in other similarly valuable
new fields), then you have a valid point. Spending all of that money
on education or on advanced medical reasearch or on ocean research
during the 60's and 70's might have generated even more beneficial
scientific breakthroughs and more direct sociatal benefits than
spending it all to shoot stuff up into (and out of) the air. Might not
have, too.

Dave Hall

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:15:34 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

Are we saying that the government buying goods and services is somehow
better for us than private citizens getting to spend that money
directly?

No, I'm just saying it's not all _totally_ wasted money.