Congress passed a law REQUIRING domestic use of drones.

[dixiegrrrrl]

A year ago, Congress tucked a small but important provision into the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act that called on the agency to “facilitate and accelerate the adoption” of drones by local police and other agencies by 2015.
Domestic drone use is in its infancy, but the FAA predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the nation’s skies in less than two decades with the help of Department of Homeland Security grants.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/02/5_things_you_didnt_know_about_drones_in_the_us.html

As they say, the devil is in the details.
WE pay for those DHS "grants".

[think]

1. A big win for the drone lobby.

[mountain grammy]

2. Seriously, aren't they always 5 steps ahead of us?

[think]

3. with bags of cash to line the congress critters coffers

we may never catch up.

As long as we allow politicians to get their money from lobbyists rather than pay them more to work for us the lobbyists will always win.

Sure there are the exceptions to this rule but most politicians are bought and paid for....

[Angry Dragon]

4. They already make more than 90% of Americans

Almost half of them are millionaires
How much more money do you think they need??

[think]

6. Pay them like CEOs, sports greats, and celebrities

They over see the spending of $ trillions of OUR money every year. Pay them greatly to do the best for US

And have greater ability if they suck or are corporate stooges to REMOVE them.

Also make tough long jail sentences for graft and pay to play corruption.

This isn't a politically altruistic point of view but rather a realistic view of things. I know most don't agree and I am in the minority with this view.

BUT you get what you pay for plain and simple. If we the people aren't paying for good leadership the corporations surely will. And their investments have paid off handsomely so far......

[Angry Dragon]

9. Then using your reasoning we should pay the President about $500,000,000 a year

seeing how they are responsible for 312,000,000 people
or just a dollar a person

[think]

11. No. Just pay them more like others who have huge jobs

The president currently makes around $500,000 per year plus around $200k in bennys and expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Compensation

$500 million is a bit of a leap from $500k. But I could easily see a first year president earning a salary of $5 million per year and a 2nd term pres earning $10 million per year.

Fuck a good short stop will run you that much now days:

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-mostunderpaidbaseballplayers/4/

Congress critters make $174k give or take plus benefits:

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

I know plenty of people who make that kind of scratch and they don't oversee anything like our congress critters do. (Not including the Congressional pensions. I will concede those are very generous.) But the base salary is pathetic for those that end up voting to spend $3 billion on tanks we don't want or need just because the MIC owns them.

You either pay them to work for you with realistic salaries or the corporations will pay it and get the leadership they paid for instead of the American people.

Just my very biased opinion....

[Angry Dragon]

13. 'Just pay them more like others who have huge jobs'

Shortstop -- What huge job is that??
Celeb -- What huge job is that??
Perhaps CEO salary is way out of wack - that is my opinion
How much work does a CEO do??
Does a CEO do 400 times the work of other workers??


Should the President get paid a dollar per person??

I think your viewpoint is out of wack ............... my opinion

[think]

14. Then let the corporations continue to bribe them with campaign contributions

and future job positions which financial values dwarf the money our leaders get in salary.

It's working just fine so far right?

You may believe that altruism is alive and well and believe that we don't have a bunch of corrupt leaders who sell out to the corporate elite if you like. As for me it is apparent the guys buying the politicians are winning.

And what's this with the president making a dollar per person? I never said anything remotely like that.

I said just pay them a salary like the people in the private sector who make more because their skills are in demand. That to me is logical.

[Angry Dragon]

15. 'And what's this with the president making a dollar per person? I never said anything remotely like'

I never said you did ......... I said it to counter your claim that Congress should get paid like movie stars, CEOs and atheletes


Like I said before, almost 50% are already millionaires and they do not listen to the people now. Do you really think paying them more money they will listen more??
There were suppose to be citizen politicians not making being a politician into a job classification.
If you pay politicians more then corporations will just pay them more.

If things are going to change then laws need to change.

[think]

16. Part of paying them more is strenthening the laws so they don't take money

from the corporations.

If you can strengthen the laws and still pay our leaders peanuts in comparison to their private industry counter parts go for it.

I want stronger laws and I'm willing to pay our leaders more to NOT take money elsewhere. Either way I want the rotten fuckers to quit selling us down the river......

[mountain grammy]

5. Our system currently not only allows this corruption, it encourages it.

It'll take years to change, if it can be done at all. Overturning citizens' united with a constitutional amendment is a good start!

[think]

12. Agree. Overturing Citizens United is where it starts.

[OceanEcosystem]

7. What is so bad about drones themselves? n/t.

[randome]

8. Nothing.

Too many are afraid they MIGHT carry weapons that MIGHT someday be used against U.S. citizens that MIGHT bring about a fascist state.

My biggest concern with surveillance drones is that one might fall from the sky and hit someone.

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. that MIGHT bring about a fascist state. ???

I would be interested in your definition of facism.
by most measurements, we are pretty well there.

Naomi Wolfe wrote a definitive article about it,in 2007,,and that was before extra judicial killing of Americans was thought of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

[Wilms]

20. "...one might fall from the sky and hit someone."

That's my fourth concern. But it's on the list.

[OldDem2012]

10. Ask yourself this....how will they be used and will there be any limits to their use. nt.

[think]

18. Expenses and priorities. Expanding the police state not only invades privacy

but it takes dollars and resources from other areas of protecting our country.

More drones for citizen surveillance less drones for ocean research etc etc.

[L0oniX]

19. They deserve medals and awards too. Hell ...lets make them people with votes. n/t

[onenote]

21. Can someone point to the specific section of the law that "requires" domestic use of drones?

I've looked through the law, which discusses unmanned aircraft in various sections, primarily Subtitle B. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find anything that "requires" the use of drones. What I found was language along the following lines:

Not later than 270 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with representatives of the aviation industry, Federal agencies that employ unmanned aircraft systems technology in the national airspace system, and the unmanned aircraft systems industry, shall develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.

As best I can tell, the legislation is aimed at making it possible for unmanned aircraft to be safely integrated into the national airspace system but it doesn't mandate that anyone deploy such aircraft.

[msanthrope]

22. Don't bring facts into this....nt