http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/31/homeland.grants/)

This is just so amazing... the incompetence is overwhelming. The DHS says that New York has no prime terrorist targets? What?

It proves how Bush's cronies are in no way concerned with ACTUALLY defending against terrorism.

Most people--even many original Bush supporters--will tell you that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was largely symbolic. Right from the beginning, the department has not been adequately funded. The response of Bush, his colleagues, and his supporters to the climate of foreign relations has been nothing but lip service since his election in 2000. I believe it is quite clear that their agenda often seek to pursue their personal and professional interests while hiding behind the ethereal veil of working for the interest of John Q Public, the American citizen, and the average voter.

Lightning doesn't strike twice. :rolleyes:

Lightning doesn't strike twice. :rolleyes:

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but if you mean to imply that NYC would not be hit again, what you should have said is that lightning doesn't strike three times. Because the WTC was hit twice. Once in 1993, then on 9/11... so don't think that it couldn't happen to NYC again.

When you catch a terrorist, why is it he always has a map of New York in his pocket?

That's true, I forgot about the attack in '93. What I'm saying is that possibly the government sees too much funding is being poured into NY and DC, where it could be located elsewhere and be put to effective use. Homeland Security officials pointed out, however, that New York is still the largest recipient in the program.So it's not like New York is being abandoned to the dogs. Of course, like Datheus said, the funds just might be going to pet projects instead of high-risk areas. I wish the article said where the extra funds went, unless that info is classified. :/

Here's what the New York Times says about what other areas recieved funds:

"Meanwhile, grants for cities like Louisville, Omaha and Charlotte, N.C., each jumped by about 40 percent, to about $8.5 million each. Newark and Jersey City, which received a combined grant, also saw a large increase, rising 44 percent to $34 million."

And here's a Washington Post article on the topic:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html)

(Oh no, evil liberal media! Shield your eyes!)

At least SOME other cities got some more money, like L.A., Atlanta, and Chicago. But at the expense of New York and D.C.? And what is up with saying that NYC has no landmarks?! Hello, Statue of Liberty anyone? Empire State Building? All those damn bridges too!

I don't mind Newark and Jersey City getting more money in grants, since they're both so close to NY that they're equally large targets and terrorists have used JC in the past as a base of operations (why am I not surprised :rolleyes:) and buildings were recently targeted in Newark, if my memory serves me well. But NY and D.C. are the two biggest targets in this country. They should be getting increases in their grants, if the funds exist for increases, not small southern and midwestern cities. But, of course, it's all about politics. Washington and New York both voted for Kerry in the last election and are solidly Democratic in their voting patterns. Meanwhile, if the Bush Administration gives more money to their supporters in the south and west, they're more likely to convince their base that they are doing well in the war on terror and homeland security despite their painfully obvious poor record. Sadly, Datheus is right. The DHS is largely symbolic. If it wasn't it would have been properly funded from the start, have competent leaders, and be allocating funds to the cities that need them the most, not Bush's political supporters and Republican base that don't need nearly as much as the prime targets.

From what I've heard about this, the money that was going to New York was for specific infrastructure projects that had been completed. Since the projects were completed, the city didn't need the additional funding anymore, so that funding was shifted to other areas that, while facing less of a threat of a terrorist attack, had not received sufficient funding for facilities such as airports to be anything approaching secure.

The theory about Bush shorting NY and DC because they went to Kerry is interesting (though laughable)...but if that were the case, why wait two years after the election? And on top of that, why should President Bush care to that extent? He can't run again.

How could it be that New York was listed as having no landmarks, though? Clearly that is a mistake.

From what I've heard about this, the money that was going to New York was for specific infrastructure projects that had been completed.

Since you have repeatedly been caught delivering outright, premediated lies, I'll have to request that you provide primary sources for that claim.

The theory about Bush shorting NY and DC because they went to Kerry is interesting (though laughable)...

Precisely why is it laughable? Not that I particularily care about your - uh - reasoning or lack thereof, I just want you to share it with the rest of the board, so we can show the lurkers (again) that you're nothing but an ignorant troll.

but if that were the case, why wait two years after the election?

He did not. This is merely the latest in a series of deliberate transfers of national security projects and funding from the civlized parts of the US (read: The coasts), to the flyover states where Bush has most of his partners in crime, and where most of the voters are solid Republican'ts.

A fact that you would already know if you paid a little more attention to real news services and a little less attention to Ann 'Banshee' Coulter, and Pat(wah) Robertson, and the rest of the fascists and Fux-anchors that you seem to get your duckspeak from.

And on top of that, why should President Bush care to that extent? He can't run again.

Because he's a vindictive, criminal bastard?

Because he wants to move money away from the people who didn't support him (and are unlikely to support whichever halfwit the Religious Reich put in his shoes) and towards the loyal IngSoc Republican't Party Members, who'll support anyone with the GOP armband, no matter how stupid or clinically insane he is?

Because he gets a cut of the money his midwest cronies skim off the contruction projects in their areas?

Because someone once contributed to his campaign, and now gets some pork in return?

Some combination of the above?

Hey, guys, believe it or not, there is more to the United States than New York and Washington, DC. Other places need security, as well. As I read the article, New York is still the biggest recipient of grants. What's the problem with spreading the limited dollars around to other places, too?

@ShadowTemplar--When you describe the coasts of the US as the only civilized places in the country, are you meaning that huge, crime-ridden, filthy cities with schools that force homosexual-activist agendas down the throats of elementary school students equates with civilization? If so, I believe we could do with a little less "civilization."

Hey, guys, believe it or not, there is more to the United States than New York and Washington, DC. Other places need security, as well. As I read the article, New York is still the biggest recipient of grants. What's the problem with spreading the limited dollars around to other places, too?

Right... because peanut farmers in Georgia really need a 40% increase in counter-terrorism funds...

New York and D.C. are the two top priority targets for al-Qaeda. We know this because they've told us this. No reason why funds should be going to random cities in North Carolina, or some other places in the sticks, that your average terrorist doesn't even know exist.

Right... because peanut farmers in Georgia really need a 40% increase in counter-terrorism funds...
1) There is more to Georgia than peanut farmers. Other places may not be such visible targets as the Statue of Liberty, but Ft. Benning, GA (the home of the Army Airborne School) would be a strategically important target. It's out by Columbus, GA.
2) Some of this is probably pork to constituents of politicians who helped Bush and DHS with their agendas. Unfortunately, government works this way.
3) New York and DC were given first priority when the dollars were initially doled out. Now its time to spread it out to others, as well. New York still gets the most. But New York is what, 13 million people out of 280 million?

1) There is more to Georgia than peanut farmers. Other places may not be such visible targets as the Statue of Liberty, but Ft. Benning, GA (the home of the Army Airborne School) would be a strategically important target. It's out by Columbus, GA.
2) Some of this is probably pork to constituents of politicians who helped Bush and DHS with their agendas. Unfortunately, government works this way.
3) New York and DC were given first priority when the dollars were initially doled out. Now its time to spread it out to others, as well. New York still gets the most. But New York is what, 13 million people out of 280 million?

How do you explain the DHS listing New York as having no landmarks?

How do you explain the DHS listing New York as having no landmarks?
I saw "zero national monuments", not "no landmarks."

They are getting $124.4 million of the total $711 million. That's 17.5% of the grant funds going to a city that holds 4% of the country's population. It's time for New Yorkers to understand they are only a small part of the US and quit whining.

I saw "zero national monuments", not "no landmarks."

"No national monuments or icons"

Fancy way of saying landmarks.

They are getting $124.4 million of the total $711 million. That's 17.5% of the grant funds going to a city that holds 4% of the country's population. It's time for New Yorkers to understand they are only a small part of the US and quit whining.

Those damn whiny New Yorkers... they only endured the worst terrorist attack ever on this country and have always been the biggest target for terrorism over any other place in the country... and we only took away nearly half of their counter-terrorism funding... those damn whiners.

Right... because peanut farmers in Georgia really need a 40% increase in counter-terrorism funds...


If last year's budget for GA was, say $100 and this year they get $140, the increase when you look at _percentage_ is large, but when you look at actual dollar amounts, it's still small. Granted they're getting a lot more money than this, but compared to the percentage _and_ total dollars NYC/DC gets, it's quite a bit less than those two cities.

I'm not saying we should take the threat to NYC any less seriously, but other places do need to have extra funding to bolster their programs, too.

Louisville and Omaha are in smaller population states. However, they're close to Ft. Knox and SAC respectively. Just because they're in small/low population states doesn't mean they aren't strategically important in some way or another. Usually that means strategic in a military sense, but it also can mean strategic in a scientific, medical, business, historical, or cultural sense as well.


@ShadowTemplar--have you been everywhere in the US so that you have intimate knowledge of how civilized each state is so you can make an informed opinion? Visited some (any?) of the 'flyover' states and got to talk to people there instead of looking at the usual tourist sites? Last I looked, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, and numerous other places in the 'flyover' states could hardly be classified as being in the 'Dark Ages'. The county I live in went for Kerry last election. Does that mean my county is now civilized, even though it's in one of those uncivilized flyover states? I fail to see how holding a certain political affiliation of any flavor is somehow equivalent to 'being civilized.'

You may not like aspects of this country or its leaders. I don't like some aspects of this country and some of its leaders, and I've lived here all my life. However, making a wholesale inference that anything between the coasts is uncivilized based solely on political affiliation is neither appropriate nor appreciated.

Is there a story here? sounds like a lot of politicians trying to appeal to their local electorate by complaining about a non issue to me.

The department of Homeland Security is a sick joke... but saying that it has "declared war on New York" simply because it has reduced it's grant from "much bigger than everyone else" to "only a bit bigger than everyone else" is stupid.

I may be taking a big logical leap here... but it seems to me that they would give the most money AT THE START to the big potential targets... and then later on start giving more money to those lower down the list. At least that's what i'd do if i was in charge of the dept. of false security.

Those damn whiny New Yorkers... they only endured the worst terrorist attack ever on this country and have always been the biggest target for terrorism over any other place in the country... and we only took away nearly half of their counter-terrorism funding... those damn whiners.
Yeah, they endured the worst terrorist attack on US soil...but even now, New York City still receives more funds from DHS than any other city in the United States. (Source (http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/grants_st-local_fy06.pdf) , refer to p.2 of pdf)

This smacks of nothing more than elitism on the part of New York officials. "Georgia peanut farmers"? As if there's nothing else in Georgia but peanut farmers? (Atlanta, by the way, is getting 18.6 million dollars, compared to NYC's 124.4 million). By the way, DC, which the article also says is getting snubbed by DHS, is the #4 top recipient of DHS funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program, behind NYC, LA, and Chicago. I also find it ironic that Chucky Schumer singled out Georgia, what with the Atlanta stadium bombing at the Olympics...

Here are a few key quotes from the article:
The department announced the recipients of $1.7 billion distributed through various programs to help states and cities help prepare for potential terror attacks and natural disasters.

Department officials have changed the criteria used to award money under their programs, saying that instead of looking at population, they are trying to focus more on where risks exist. They are also taking into account how well municipalities have used past grants.

The department said there is risk throughout the nation and that preparedness dollars therefore need to be spread out.

"It does not mean the risk in New York is different ... or lower," Assistant Secretary Tracy Henke said. "It means we have additional information, additional clarity" about how to best allocate resources.

She said one problem the department faced in making its decisions is that Congress allocated less money for all of the grant programs this year. She added that the department has much better information this year, which helped in the evaluation of where the money should go.
After 9/11, we poured money into New York and DC, the targets of that attack...just as we should have. But to say that it's reasonable to splurge in New York and DC while skimping in other areas of the US is just foolish. After all, as New York and DC become more and more secure, the more likely it becomes that terrorist attacks will be perpetrated elsewhere, as there will be a greater likelihood of success somewhere else.

It's also extremely disengenuous for Chucky Schumer to be out there bashing Chertoff when the article explicitly states that Congress allocated less money for the UASI program this year. If Schumer wants to keep DHS funding for New York, he shouldn't be bashing Chertoff, he should be bashing himself and the Congress for cutting funding.

If anything, this sounds like DHS becoming more effecient and more effective. They're learning to use their money better. And it's extremely hard to take Chuck Schumer seriously when New York City is still getting the biggest piece of the pie.

As for the whole "no national monuments or icons" thing, I'd like to look at the 'scorecard' that supposedly came to this conclusion myself...but after searching for the better part of an hour, I can't find it. But my question is, if DHS has scored New York City as having 'no national monuments or icons,' what are they doing giving New York City the most money? If DHS really considered New York City to not be much of a terrorist target, they wouldn't be giving them 124.4 million dollars (17.9% of total UASI funds).

You may not like aspects of this country or its leaders. I don't like some aspects of this country and some of its leaders, and I've lived here all my life. However, making a wholesale inference that anything between the coasts is uncivilized based solely on political affiliation is neither appropriate nor appreciated.

You are quite right, of course. I was venting steam. Which is no excuse, of course. My sincere apologies, both for my unwarrented hyperbole, and for the tardiness of my response (the latter being rather more warrented than the former, however, since I've been caught up in both a couple of political drives and a couple of exams - in the middle of which my 'net suddenly decided to take a hike...).