Homeland Security. What a joke

[akarunway 1]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/422633p-356751c.html

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Sounds like Bloomberg needs to get revised info turned in....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

The percentages appear to be very misleading. So NYC got cut 40%. Oh My God!

Later however it is revealed the will be getting shitloads more than most anyplace else.

Whiners.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Here's how some cities are faring under the new budget:

Jacksonville, Fla. 2005 funds: $6.8 million. 2006 funds: $9.2 million. Increase: 26%. Major landmark: Alltel Stadium, home of Jacksonville Jaguars.

St. Louis; 2005 funds: $7 million. 2006 funds: $9.2 million. Increase: 23.6%. Major landmark: Gateway Arch.

Louisville, Ky.; 2005 funds: $5 million. 2006 funds: $8.5 million. Increase: 41.2%. Major landmark: Churchill Downs race track.

Omaha 2005 funds: $5.1 million. 2006 funds: $8.3 million. Increase: 38.2%. Major landmark: Offutt Air Force Base.

Looks like being a red state has its rewards. I wonder if Nebraska or Kentucky even generate enough tax dollars to justify the federal dollars they receive. And then you hear the rednecks gripe about welfare state. Maybe their politicians should try practicing what they preach and try holding their own.

Quote

For instance, in the category "national monuments and icons," the feds list none. For banking and finance businesses, they could find only four worth more than $8 billion, when the Bloomberg administration estimates there are at least 20.

"How do you leave every single landmark in the most famous city in the world off of that list?" said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who along with King was demanding a meeting with Chertoff.

More idiocy from this administration. What else is new.

F.ck Bush and the GOP, jerkoffs come to NYC for their convention, tout 911 to their advantage, and then this.

And let's keep hearing more about how strong republicans are on national security.

Absolutely disgusting.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 3,120]

>Looks like being a red state has its rewards.

In a very big way. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

--------------------
In 2003, the top subsidy-sucking state, in percentage terms, was red-lite New Mexico, which received $1.99 in federal money for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. All the next eight net recipients of federal spending were redder yet: Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi and Alaska, which received $1.60 to $1.89 back for each tax dollar.

The list of net losers in the state-federal exchange, by contrast, reads like a Who's Who of Blue. Two of the top 14 were traditionally red Western states that are starting to turn purple, Colorado and Nevada. The other 12 are all blue: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Wisconsin and the biggest chump of all, New Jersey, where the federal government spends just $.57 for every dollar it collects.
-----------------

[03CLS 0]

Does this mean we can expect another inside I mean attack in NYC?

[rehmwa 2]

So mostly dem states get to give all their money to the government and mostly rep states get their money back (instead of just keep it in the first place, of course).

Sounds like everybody is getting what they preach, politically........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>mostly rep states get their money back . . .

They don't just get their money back, they get $1.75 on the dollar - which is a pretty good deal! Least now we know which party those "welfare bums" are in . . .

[narcimund 0]

Quote

What a joke

You have an opinion about how many dollars NYC should have to spend on surveillance.

How would you divide it?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>mostly rep states get their money back . . .

They don't just get their money back, they get $1.75 on the dollar - which is a pretty good deal! Least now we know which party those "welfare bums" are in . . .

Simple fix, don't let the government have that money in the first place. Keep it in the states where the states spend on themselves. Guess which party gets upset then?

So now do you believe the sole reason for taxes and government is not to do 'good', but just to redistribute wealth?

And if the money is flowing from dems to reps, then wouldn't that mean the dem states are richer? and thus exactly the type of demographic which they despise in the first place?

((BTW, the correct answer is BOTH parties get upset - or at least the politicians in those parties, but the stereotypeed answer is the dems))

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

More idiocy from this administration. What else is new.
F.ck Bush and the GOP, jerkoffs... blah blah blah

Please enlighten us with what you think the appropriate fund allocations should be.

[billvon 3,120]

>Simple fix, don't let the government have that money in the first
> place. Keep it in the states where the states spend on themselves.
> Guess which party gets upset then?

Well, it would run counter to both party's big-federal-government ideals, but would tend to hurt the red states more. If such a thing were implemented, I would expect to see some current republicans change sides when they realize their taxes are going to go up as a result.

>So now do you believe the sole reason for taxes and government is
>not to do 'good', but just to redistribute wealth?

Nope. The purpose of our government is summed up pretty well here:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

To do those things requires money, and that money comes from taxes. I agree with you that taxes should be as low as possible, and that states should do more than they are doing now i.e. the federal government should relinquish some of their duties to the states. (Note that that doesn't mean taxes will necessarily drop - indeed, red staters would end up paying more as their services are taken over at the state level.)

>And if the money is flowing from dems to reps, then wouldn't that
> mean the dem states are richer?

Not necessarily. As you know, wealth is not taxed - income is. So a guy with a net value of -200K (mortgage) making $120K a year is paying far more tax than someone who's not working and living off a $20 million family fortune.

It would be more accurate to say that there are more people making more money in the predominantly democratic states. However, statistically speaking, people with higher incomes still tend to vote republican.

[kallend 2,151]

In general, capitalism does a very good job of assessing the relative values and risks of things.

My capitalist insurance company wants an extra $10 per year (That's ten dollars) to insure me against any and all risks related to terrorist attack.

Considering that's about 0.5% of premiums, it puts it in perspective in the spectrum of risks that I face.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

More idiocy from this administration. What else is new.
F.ck Bush and the GOP, jerkoffs... blah blah blah

Please enlighten us with what you think the appropriate fund allocations should be.

Give me the courtesy of an accurate quote next time and maybe I'll answer your question.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

More idiocy from this administration. What else is new.
F.ck Bush and the GOP, jerkoffs... blah blah blah

Please enlighten us with what you think the appropriate fund allocations should be.

Give me the courtesy of an accurate quote next time and maybe I'll answer your question.

All he did was add "blah blah blah" to part of your quote. That's not polite I suppose, but it IS an accurate quote inasmuch as it's a quote at all.

You seem to be taking a VERY thin excuse for avoiding a chance to advance the central point of your own post.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

All he did was add "blah blah blah" to part of your quote. That's not polite I suppose

It's not polite, and being that he's a rather touchy fellow judging from many of his SC posts that I've read, I thought I'd call him on it since I'm sure he'd react similarly. Why dignify his question with an answer if he can't ask it politely.

So to continue the dialogue and answer the question -- how to distribute the funding? I'm no expert on government expenditures, but common sense dictates that you don't significantly slash funding to your main terrorist target and increase it significantly for extremely unlikely target cities. There's your answer in short, very simple: don't cut funding to the bullseye terrorist target by 40%.

A question I'd like to ask of any of Bush's supporters is how do you justify cutting funding to NYC by 40% while increasing aid to Louisville, Omaha, Jacksonville and St. Louis by 20-40%?

And don't leave the list of landmarks for NYC blank. Another sterling example of this administration's incompetence.

Talk about "encouraging terrorists." This administration has demonstrated again and again that it lacks very basic common sense. Apparently so do the administration's supporters, if this all has to be explained.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Give me the courtesy of an accurate quote next time and maybe I'll answer your question.

Quote

All he did was add "blah blah blah" to part of your quote. That's not polite I suppose

It's not polite... Why dignify his question with an answer if he can't ask it politely.

It's also not polite to re-quote an entire long message, when all you need is one little sentence for reference to your topic matter. The "blah blah blah" was sort of like an elipsis, to indicate that other material was intentionally omitted. And gosh, you seem a bit touchy yourself.

Quote

common sense dictates that you don't significantly slash funding to your main terrorist target and increase it significantly for extremely unlikely target cities.

Maybe the large expenditure in the previous years was enough to take care of most of New York's up-front needs, and now it's time to spread out and address some other vulnerabilities. Just because you start with a large sum in the early years, doesn't automatically justify the need to continue spending the same amount every year.

I bought a fixer-upper house a few years ago. I spent a ton of money initially getting it upgraded and everything fixed. But since then, it requires very little maintenance to keep it in tip-top shape.

Common sense isn't so common.

But I hope you feel better getting that anti-Bush rant off your chest.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

There's your answer in short, very simple: don't cut funding to the bullseye terrorist target by 40%.

Have the bullseye target turn in updated info to DHS...problem solved.

Quote

A question I'd like to ask of any of Bush's supporters is how do you justify cutting funding to NYC by 40% while increasing aid to Louisville, Omaha, Jacksonville and St. Louis by 20-40%?

See above

Quote

And don't leave the list of landmarks for NYC blank. Another sterling example of this administration's incompetence.

ibid

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

In general, capitalism does a very good job of assessing the relative values and risks of things.

My capitalist insurance company wants an extra $10 per year (That's ten dollars) to insure me against any and all risks related to terrorist attack.

Ask them how much it would be if you lived in Manhattan.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

In general, capitalism does a very good job of assessing the relative values and risks of things.

My capitalist insurance company wants an extra $10 per year (That's ten dollars) to insure me against any and all risks related to terrorist attack.

Ask them how much it would be if you lived in Manhattan.

Same.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

The "blah blah blah" was sort of like an elipsis, to indicate that other material was intentionally omitted. And gosh, you seem a bit touchy yourself.

I've seen you avoid answering questions in very similar ways. I was just aping what you do.

Quote

Maybe the large expenditure in the previous years was enough to take care of most of New York's up-front needs, and now it's time to spread out and address some other vulnerabilities.

Apparently not. You might want to actually read the article:

Quote

The lowball dollar amount puts at risk the NYPD's plan to build a "ring of steel" of security measures around lower Manhattan — surveillance cameras, computerized license plate readers and vehicle barriers.

The NYPD had asked the feds for $89.1 million for the system, modeled after London's security program. London's system gained worldwide recognition last summer when police cameras provided images of the bombers who attacked its transit system.

Quote

I bought a fixer-upper house a few years ago. I spent a ton of money initially getting it upgraded and everything fixed. But since then, it requires very little maintenance to keep it in tip-top shape.

So your party touts national security as one of its great strengths. Meanwhile, 5 years after 911, a terrorist can still row across the Hudson with a dirty bomb if he wanted to. Not to mention that our ports of entry are still quite far from secure. And you're making the analogy that security in NYC is in tip-top shape. I'm glad you're not in charge of my security.

Quote

Common sense isn't so common.

Thank you for making my point, Mr. Rich.


mnealtx:

Quote

Have the bullseye target turn in updated info to DHS...problem solved
...
see above
...
ibid

You're telling me that NY's decade-old landmarks should be based on updated information? You would make an excellent bureaucrat.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You're telling me that NY's decade-old landmarks should be based on updated information? You would make an excellent bureaucrat.

You're saying that fed.gov should automatically know what NYC wants to be protected?

Cool... so when I go to get on welfare the next time I get laid off, they should automatically know how much I should get. I won't need to bring in pay stubs or anything else..they'll just *know*!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I was just aping what you do.

Oh, so it's okay for you to do the same thing, of which you complain from others. Well, it's nice to see you stick to your principles and take the high road.

Quote

So your party touts national security as one of its great strengths. Meanwhile, 5 years after 911, a terrorist can still row across the Hudson with a dirty bomb blah blah blah

Well if you know so much about homeland security, you should hire yourself out as a consultant. Apparently you know more than they do about what the most likely targets are, what threats have been received, the best way to apportion the limited amount of funds, how to prioritize the work that needs to be done, and so on. I'm glad that you are such an expert on all this.

How do you propose to stop a terrorist from rowing across the Hudson with a dirty bomb?

Why wouldn't the terrorist just blow up Podunk, Kansas, instead, to teach those darned evil Americans that none of them are safe anywhere, regardless of the size of the city in which they live?

Please enlighten me with your superior knowledge and wisdom.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Why wouldn't the terrorist just blow up Podunk, Kansas, instead, to teach those darned evil Americans that none of them are safe anywhere, regardless of the size of the city in which they live?

I think we should strongly encourage terrorists to blow up mythical cities like Podunk, and only mythical cities. It's win-win, they look like heroes to the folks back home, and no damage is done here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think we should strongly encourage terrorists to blow up mythical cities like Podunk, and only mythical cities. It's win-win, they look like heroes to the folks back home, and no damage is done here.

Sounds like politics. In fact, after "Podunk" is "bombed" furious political discussion and positioning can occur, congressmen can make promises, and many votes can be secured by incumbants from both parties. It'll even keep speaker's corner busy for a day or two.

You know, I heard that Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both stayed in Podunk at a 'rich guy's' conference where they cased the city and sent the plans to the FBI where they ended up on Osama bin Laden's desk/rock. It sure made the pharmaceutical company's coffers expand. Nixon was well pleased.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants