If the Republicans care about terriosm why Cut funding to new york and washington :D
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
can anybody defend cutting terriosm funding to new york.
OK, try thinking of it like an award that is given out only to special people every year. The third year, a few of the same people don't get the special award and they complain that their salary has been cut. Does that help you understand? I doubt it, but others get it.
The only propaganda BS is that the media is acting like this is some kind of cut when all the money was "surplus surprise" money to many of the agencies who got it. If you had any idea some of the extravagant apparatus that was purchased with this windfall that will never ever get used, you would have lobbied yourself to stop this nonsense. Or maybe you just like regurgitating news stories you've read without any knowledge of actual circumstances.
Pulling some lines out of:
Anti-Terror Funding Cut In D.C. and New York
New York's grant plummeted from about $207 million to $124 million. A DHS risk scorecard for the city asserted that the home of the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge has "zero" national monuments or icons.
The department refused to release the names of panel members or other details about the review boards.
I. Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Homeland Safety and Security at the University of Maryland, said the plan doesn't pass the common-sense test.
"It's completely inconsistent," Greenberger said. "Where are our priorities? . . . There can be no doubt that Washington and New York are the biggest potential ground zeroes for any future attack."
Winners included Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as smaller cities such as Louisville (up 70 percent), Charlotte (64 percent) and St. Louis (31 percent).
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) scoffed at the grant decision. "When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket," he said. "They don't have a map of any of the other 45 places."
---------
Louisville, rofl.
Anti-Terror Funding Cut In D.C. and New York
New York's grant plummeted from about $207 million to $124 million. A DHS risk scorecard for the city asserted that the home of the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge has "zero" national monuments or icons.
The department refused to release the names of panel members or other details about the review boards.
I. Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Homeland Safety and Security at the University of Maryland, said the plan doesn't pass the common-sense test.
"It's completely inconsistent," Greenberger said. "Where are our priorities? . . . There can be no doubt that Washington and New York are the biggest potential ground zeroes for any future attack."
Winners included Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as smaller cities such as Louisville (up 70 percent), Charlotte (64 percent) and St. Louis (31 percent).
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) scoffed at the grant decision. "When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket," he said. "They don't have a map of any of the other 45 places."
---------
Louisville, rofl.
That article misses the entire point.
Prior to 9/11, these grants didn't exist. By the headline logic, we didn't care about protecting anything in this country prior to 9/11.
My issue is what the agencies bought with the money. You can only buy so many command pods for a million bucks each. When DC gets a scare, there are no less than 4 agencies "setting up command" in those million dollar RVs with every tech gadget known to man. NYPD has been great about setting up units to get international intel and work to PREVENT terrorism, but they are nearly alone in that effort. Most of the other communties have just bought very expensive toys to RESPOND to an incident. NY, DC, LA and the others already have more personal protective equipment than they can possibly wear for any one incident.
If the feds are going to insist on doling out such huge sums for the cause of homeland security, they might as well spread it around.
Prior to 9/11, these grants didn't exist. By the headline logic, we didn't care about protecting anything in this country prior to 9/11.
My issue is what the agencies bought with the money. You can only buy so many command pods for a million bucks each. When DC gets a scare, there are no less than 4 agencies "setting up command" in those million dollar RVs with every tech gadget known to man. NYPD has been great about setting up units to get international intel and work to PREVENT terrorism, but they are nearly alone in that effort. Most of the other communties have just bought very expensive toys to RESPOND to an incident. NY, DC, LA and the others already have more personal protective equipment than they can possibly wear for any one incident.
If the feds are going to insist on doling out such huge sums for the cause of homeland security, they might as well spread it around.
Knowing that they are a special situation (as they see it), they never once enacted a statewide tax to make any consideration or allocation for themselves. Not even at the city level did they make any efforts.
Seems that everyone nationally needs to do all they can for them. Typical attitude of most folks today. I can't do it by myself, let's get everybody to help offset my costs and do it for me. Then (as politicians do) you just budget for it every year. After all, you do ALWAYS need more stuff you know?
Seems that everyone nationally needs to do all they can for them. Typical attitude of most folks today. I can't do it by myself, let's get everybody to help offset my costs and do it for me. Then (as politicians do) you just budget for it every year. After all, you do ALWAYS need more stuff you know?