=( Inferencers, don't bother visiting NYC...Chertoff sez we have NO National ICONS! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-02-2006, 12:03 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:02 PM
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Friday, June 2, 2006

"Does the Department of Homeland Security know something about terrorist threats to Fort Lauderdale, Fla; Louisville, Ky., and Memphis that average citizens don’t? Or are our federal tax dollars being spent to make the world a safer place for wet T-shirt contests for spring breakers, horse racing fans and Elvis devotees?
Yep, the figures are now in and Homeland Security grants are up for those three potential hotbeds of terrorism, by as much as 41 percent in the case of Louisville, home to the Kentucky Derby.
Meanwhile New York City’s grants are down by 40 percent and grants to the Boston area are off 30 percent from last year.
Of course, before we bemoan this as a catastrophe waiting to happen, let’s also acknowledge the obvious waste in the program - that little fleet of watercraft being acquired by the otherwise landlocked sheriff of Middlesex County comes immediately to mind.
And New York City was also in the habit of using large amounts of its grant money to fund police overtime, a recurring expense that Homeland Security officials already warned they would not look upon with favor.
Still, it’s surely no coincidence that Memphis (which got $4 million) is in the home state of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Louisville ($9 million) is home to Rep. Hal Rogers, chair of the subcommittee on Homeland Security appropriations.
Homeland Security officials insist Fort Lauderdale and Orlando are up for substantial increases because they are tourist destinations. Memphis made the list because of the cargo passing through it. But Omaha (up 38 percent)?
Sad to say, Homeland Security grants have become just another kind of pork in too many places (and, yes, that includes some in our own back yard). But who knew the department itself would get so good at playing that game too?"
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:09 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by tackleberry


That's not the point. NYC is of course going to get more money then Omaha, NE because it is so so much bigger.

The PROBLEM is they cut the funding by so much. There's your "idiocy." At least they could have given the same amount as last year, instead of sending us a big ole FU.

Why even it cut it at all!!????
These are grants, not sources of perpetual income. The money is intended for capital items, equipment and supplies.

NYC got the first and largest chunk of the pie. They still get the largest chunk.

The response we get is entitlement mentality.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:18 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The response we get is entitlement mentality.


you mean the fact that because i live in Washington DC, i feel entitled to have more money spent on my city for terrorist protection than someone who lives in Omaha, NE and then to get a little bit worried when i see that money cut from a city that already has priorities way out of whack ($250 million on a freakin' baseball stadium when RFK works just fine, than you)?

yes, i feel quite well entitled to that.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:30 PM   #19
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 613
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


These are grants, not sources of perpetual income. The money is intended for capital items, equipment and supplies.

NYC got the first and largest chunk of the pie. They still get the largest chunk.

The response we get is entitlement mentality.
That still does not explain WHY THEY CUT IT.

Is it because the government has less money due to the fact that they cut taxes again so that Joe and Jane Shmo can have 30 extra dollars in their pockets at the end of the year? Or less money because of Iraq? Or less money because....

WHY would you CUT TERROR FUNDING!!!! Why??? So we can have less supplies and LESS Equipment? How is that helpful?
__________________
tackleberry is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:42 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by tackleberry


That still does not explain WHY THEY CUT IT.

Is it because the government has less money due to the fact that they cut taxes again so that Joe and Jane Shmo can have 30 extra dollars in their pockets at the end of the year? Or less money because of Iraq? Or less money because....

WHY would you CUT TERROR FUNDING!!!! Why??? So we can have less supplies and LESS Equipment? How is that helpful?
It is a finite sum of money.

You are suggesting that if any other city gets money, it is after NYC gets the same amount, each year (probably should add some for inflation)!

Oncy you buy your supplies and equipment, it is time to move to the next city so they can get their supplies and equipment.

Why not explain how the $125 Million is not enough. We get plenty of emotional "They cut terror funding" pleas, but little in the way of explaination of why more money is needed.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:58 PM   #21
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 613
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


It is a finite sum of money.

You are suggesting that if any other city gets money, it is after NYC gets the same amount, each year (probably should add some for inflation)!

Oncy you buy your supplies and equipment, it is time to move to the next city so they can get their supplies and equipment.

Why not explain how the $125 Million is not enough. We get plenty of emotional "They cut terror funding" pleas, but little in the way of explaination of why more money is needed.
I understand. But to cut it by 40% Come on man, that's just crazy. Maybe take a little off from each major city, but 40% from NYC and 30% from Boston??? Too much.

And 125 million is not enough because the harbors are not secure enough, the major landmarks (which don't exist apparantly) are not secure enough, the tunnels, bridges, train stations, subways are NOT secure enough...I could go on.
__________________
tackleberry is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 01:02 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:02 PM
And all the cities who got little or no funding in the first rounds of grants were making similar statements.

There really is no definition of "enough" when it comes to security.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 01:25 PM   #23
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 08:02 PM


Quit dissin' Omaha. That stockyard supplies your hamburgers.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 02:24 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,000
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This is idiocy.

NYC still got the largest share of the money.
and NYC NEVER received all the money that was promised to US in the first place..............


the terrorists who are planning attacks are ALMOST ALWAYS carrying maps of NYC when they have been caught.


nb....you come to MY city, and stand at the &^%#!~#) hole, maybe go talk to some of the first responders.......see how they were NOT properly fitted during the next set of days of resuce, then recovery...you talk and see how many were afected...respitory wise and how the EPA Lied under your guy.....that the air was safe for people to go back to wqork ASAP.....

don't be so cavalier about about what people need
re "entitlements".

remember the saying "there but for the grace of God"

some day YOU might be saved from some accident or sometime {in a town or city] by a person who was really down on their luck, and was helped by one of those "entitlements" care for the disabled, food stamps , aid to women and children...... and was doing better now{in future}....
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 02:57 PM   #25
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why not explain how the $125 Million is not enough. We get plenty of emotional "They cut terror funding" pleas, but little in the way of explaination of why more money is needed.
Quote:
Funding cuts a threat to city terror security
BY LUIS PEREZ AND BRYAN VIRASAMI
Newsday Staff Writers

June 2, 2006

It would buy New York City surveillance cameras that hover over Wall Street and midtown. It would back heavily armored patrol units in busy streets and subways. And it would pay for machines that detect what experts say is the next frontier in terror: biological and radioactive assaults.

New York City, the site of the deadliest terrorist attacks on United States soil, had looked to 2006 to accomplish all these things with federal anti-terrorism funds. But the city may have to scuttle all or some of the planned defense improvements in the wake of controversial 40 percent cuts made in its Homeland Security allowance.

"It didn't seem to make any sense to me," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said yesterday, responding to Wednesday's announcement that the city would receive $124.5 million from the federal agency, down from $207.5 in 2005.

Nassau and Suffolk counties had been hoping to purchase new satellite phones needed by emergency responders. They also planned for more preparedness training and hoped to install emergency alert systems in schools. Officials said they had not been informed yet how much they would get this year. But one thing was clear.

"Whatever money we lose, it's one less thing we'll be buying," said Joseph Williams, commissioner of Suffolk's Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services.

Of course, New York City received the bulk of the Urban Areas Securities Initiative Grant, the largest of five Homeland Security checks doled out annually to cities and states across the country.

Some experts suggested that the millions taken away from New York City and showered on middle America and California were a result of the city's good job in armoring itself against terror.

"To a certain extent, New York is being punished for being very honest about how it spends money on anti-terrorism," said New York University Professor Paul Light, who studies catastrophe preparedness.

Bloomberg said the city has been forced to spend its own money on anti-terror defenses, much of which federal homeland security grants will not reimburse. Looking ahead, the mayor warned, the city may have to rely more on the state for its terror funding.

In 2005, according to the mayor's office, the city spent some of the anti-terror monies this way: $16.6 million went to police overtime; $9 million went into equipment for the police Counter Terrorism Bureau; $7 million went to backup generators for hospitals; and $9.1 million went into purchasing a batch of surveillance cameras.

In Nassau, officials said they divvied up last year's $3 million pot among various agencies, towns and villages.

Suffolk officials said they spent a large chunk of their allotment on a $300,000 emergency alert system.

Staff writer Chau Lam contributed to this story.

there's still a ton of work to be done in new york city, even though a lot of work has already been done. to start cutting back funding now would be a grave mistake.

no matter how much money is spent, you'll never be able to completely protect a city from terrorist attack. but you can make the city's emergency response system so technologiclay advanced that when the inevitable does happen, lives can and will be saved. new york has made many strides in this area, an area where they were already the best in the nation... but more needs to be done, and they can't stop now.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 07:41 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Let me guess..... complain?!?!?

It is a political lose-lose - if any attack actually occurs, it doesn't matter how much money you flooded into an area - it wasn't enough.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 08:16 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:02 PM
NY Daily News

BY CELESTE KATZ, GREG WILSON and MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

The Department of Homeland Security's decision to slash the city's anti-terrorism funding by 40% may be payback for getting embarrassed during a terror alert last year, Mayor Bloomberg suggested yesterday.

Last October, Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly announced a massive security alert on the subways after receiving intelligence information that they described as a "specific threat" to New York City.

Officials at Homeland Security quickly - and publicly - cast doubt on the intelligence that prompted the alert, but were later humiliated when it was discovered that two department officials sent private e-mails warning their friends and family of a possible subway attack.

"Whether this is a little bit of getting even with us for embarrassing them, I don't know," Bloomberg said on his weekly WABC radio program. "I can't attribute motives. What I do know is that we are disappointed."

Bloomberg suggested again yesterday that politics unduly influenced how the department doled out funds. "Everything in Washington is driven by politics, that's one of the problems with our system," the mayor said.

A Bloomberg administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the city has still not received a clear explanation from Homeland Security for the decision.

"No one is articulating anything," the official said. "It's all very elusive and opaque."

The official suggested that the city's application met raised eyebrows because it emphasized training and personnel.

"This is not what they're about," the official said. "They like to fund things that come in a box and a ribbon - and there's the new fire truck!"

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Eliot Spitzer said the decision points to how "completely and thoroughly incompetent these folks are."

Spitzer sent President Bush a letter of complaint yesterday, and said, "The conclusion that it was wrong is so overwhelmingly apparent that it is startling."

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) said he has little doubt that politics played a role, saying his colleagues in Congress look at terror funding as a pie to be carved up.

"It is true that many of them look upon this as a pork barrel, and they wanted their share, even though they don't have their share of the risk," Rangel said. "They made a stupid mistake."

Bloomberg said he plans to talk again with Homeland Department Secretary Michael Chertoff next week.

"If we did something wrong, I want to make sure we don't repeat the mistake again," Bloomberg said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:16 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:02 PM

What the?????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13822662/
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:46 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Well the kangaroos are obvious, you can smuggle a lot in those pouches...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 07:52 PM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Well the kangaroos are obvious, you can smuggle a lot in those pouches...
I live near a zoo

__________________

__________________
silja is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com