Bush: "Terror Threat Over"

[Thunder]

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=76121

According to George Bush, the domestic threat from terrorism is now over. He wants to completaly do away with funding for port and transit security programs and local emergency managemant operations.

Whats the message here? The threat is over...therefore we don't have to pay for it anymore.

[Pardalis]

First of all, he didn't say "Terror threat over".

And second, so much for the police state.

[sinclairmcevoy]

The threat that still remains is that this guy is still in power.

[WildCat]

That spending should be cut. Most of it goes to places that aren't any special risk of a terrorist attack, exists simply to send pork to Podunk. It's not the job of the Federal government to pay for a new 911 center somewhere simply because it might be useful in the case of a terrorist attack. That should be funded locally.

[boloboffin]

That spending should be cut. Most of it goes to places that aren't any special risk of a terrorist attack, exists simply to send pork to Podunk. It's not the job of the Federal government to pay for a new 911 center somewhere simply because it might be useful in the case of a terrorist attack. That should be funded locally.

Did the people in those areas pay taxes?

[Skibum]

Did the people in those areas pay taxes?

More than likely, but local issues should be paid for by local taxes.

[boloboffin]

More than likely, but local issues should be paid for by local taxes.

Is terrorism prevention a local issue or a national security issue?

[JoeEllison]

More than likely, but local issues should be paid for by local taxes.

Wow, that's pretty incredible. I guess states should pay for their own armies and air forces too, right?

[JoeEllison]

My guess is that there's too much of a "nickel and dime" aspect to "homeland security" that doesn't allow Republican campaign donors to skim huge amounts of cash, so money needs to be transfered to more profitable pork.

[Skibum]

Is terrorism prevention a local issue or a national security issue?

National, a new 911 center in Podunk would be local.

[Skibum]

Wow, that's pretty incredible. I guess states should pay for their own armies and air forces too, right?


No. Those would be the responsibility of the Federal government.

[JoeEllison]

No. Those would be the responsibility of the Federal government.

Why the distinction?

Never mind, I see what you're saying... but what about port security?

[gumboot]

Wow, that's pretty incredible. I guess states should pay for their own armies and air forces too, right?

They do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces)

-Gumboot

[Skibum]

Why the distinction?

Never mind, I see what you're saying... but what about port security?

Port security would be coast guard and customs, so federal.

[WildCat]

Why the distinction?

Never mind, I see what you're saying... but what about port security?
I was saying that most of the money goes to "places that aren't any special risk of a terrorist attack". I bolded the important part here since you missed it in my first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3204630#post3204630).

Just because a movie theater in, say, Nowhere Nebraska could be blown up in a terrorist attack doesn't meant that the Federal government is now responsible for renovating the place in the name of Homeland Security.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I guess that means we can get rid of that Patriot Act as well.

[Puppycow]

My response: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think there was an overreaction in the wake of 9/11 (understandable), and subsequent history has shown that that there hasn't been any big terrorist threat in years. There's a lot of waste and pork in that budget. I do note that Bush waited until the Democrats took over congress to start worrying about this.

[Undesired Walrus]

My response: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And even the least of us demand the finest wines known to humanity.