| Author | Message | ||
     Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1932 Registered: 7-2004  |
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/422633p-356751c.html Accroding to the geniuses at homeland security, NYC has no monuments or icons so therefore NYC gets much less anti-terror money. Good news for folks in places like Lexington and Omaha. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3371 Registered: 5-2001  |
What a kick in the groin. Unbelievable. No national monuments or icons? Hello?! | ||
| Pippi Supporter Username: Pippi Post Number: 2281 Registered: 8-2003  |
I am pleased to see that the NY Post is equally up in arms http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/66878.htm "D.C.'S STUPID SCROOGES SLASH NYC TERROR AID AND SPLURGE ON THE STICKS" | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1740 Registered: 10-2002  |
They really need to get their heads out of their asses. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3374 Registered: 5-2001 |
The Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the subway system, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYSE, Ellis Island, the bridges and tunnels, etc... I guess they're right, there are no good targets for terrorists in NYC. And I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that NYC is a left-leaning town. | ||
| mlj Citizen Username: Mlj Post Number: 256 Registered: 6-2001 |
Appropriation of Homeland Security $$ has been a disgraceful boondoggle. I still wonder if Americans will ever pay attention to what the government is doing with this $$, or do they only hear the endless, numbing exploitation of 9/11 for political purposes. | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 2110 Registered: 11-2001  |
Absurd. The mayor of Louisville was on the Brian Lehrer show this morning discussing this very issue. I doubt that Bush and Chertoff are looking at the same "New York City" as the rest of us. They are simply, as Bush typically does, asking no questions, and therefore have no idea what is real. Pinheads. | ||
| buzzsaw Citizen Username: Buzzsaw  Post Number: 4869 Registered: 5-2001  |
I remember watching a segment on 60minutes about the stuff that small towns were using their homeland security money on. It was sad. I think one of the bigger purchaces was some kind of super vehicle that had only been used to pull floats in a parade. NYC is one big icon. What a joke. The bagel place on 14th street and 6th ave is a bigger attraction than the Churchill Downs race track. SHAME ON YOU HOMELAND SECURITY. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 176 Registered: 6-2002 |
While I agree that it makes NO SENSE to cut funds to NY and DC, I did notice that $$ to Newark/Jersey City is going up. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 917 Registered: 6-2002 |
Newark used part of a previous year's HS money to buy a garbage truck. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7311 Registered: 10-2001  |
New York City still receives the most money...The city will have to pick up the balance. They can afford it. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3378 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the intention was that Sharpe James would hide within it's bulletproof interior while fleeing from the city in case of terrorist attack (or imminent legal shakedown). | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1745 Registered: 10-2002 |
Does anyone know how much of last year's allotment we actually used and what we used it on? Is there a public report on that? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1107 Registered: 2-2004 |
Stop whining. You get more money than anyone and you are still crying. This is hilarious. Besides, I thought you good libs were all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Chertoff should be your hero in his Robin Hood role. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7313 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 84 Registered: 2-2006  |
Southerner, it sounds to me like you're saying that when the city that was hit hardest on 9/11 questions their government as to why they would cut aid to them and give it to Omaha, well, it sounds like you're saying that New Yorkers are whiners. You're saying this in favor of an administration who allowed this to happen. Its sounds like you're saying that when those towers fell with all those people that was hilarious. So you're saying that a miserable intelligence failure that caused the largest attack on American soil is funny? We in New York are whiners? The money would be better spent on pork in St. Louis? I'll bet you think that all those men women and children who boarded airplanes to lose their lives on that day deserved it. It rings a little like that to me. The level of your shamelessness is easy for those with eyes to see. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7315 Registered: 10-2001 |
You do realize these grants are awarded for other issues besides terror. You know, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.. First responders in each and every state need to be prepared. On second thought, maybe you don't realize this. | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2004 |
Strawberry, I do realize it, and you're right. Envelope please..................... and the contract goes to............. Halliburton! Remember, it's your money. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5039 Registered: 5-2001 |
Strawberry will bend over and kiss his *** goodbye in order to support whatever idiotic scheme the Bushies put into place. Straw, read carefully; they cut funds on a number of criteria including a count of national monuments and icons. They said NYC had zero. That's right, zero. Defend that number successfully, and I'll agree with you in large red letters. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5040 Registered: 5-2001 |
They also said NYC had four major financial institutions. Heckuva job, whoever it is doing the counting. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5462 Registered: 10-1999  |
Actually, the cuts in funding for urban areas, which are the ones which are the subject of the news reports, are for the Urban Area Security Initiative. This is anti-terror money, not "natural disaster" money. Maybe you didn't realize this. | ||
| shestheone Citizen Username: Shestheone Post Number: 282 Registered: 5-2003 |
ROTFLOL!! thank you nohero! | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5668 Registered: 8-2003 |
Personally, I'm not aware enough of NYC's needs given they received the lion's share of terror/security funding when this whole thing started. What I am grateful to see is that Newark -- and I presume the port of Newark as well as the airport -- is getting some increases. The line used by some in the media that Chertoff is from NJ, therefore that's why they got this money doesn't ring true for me. Jersey City and Paterson are places I'd like some attention to be paid to as well. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7319 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Actually, the cuts in funding for urban areas, which are the ones which are the subject of the news reports, are for the Urban Area Security Initiative. This is anti-terror money, not "natural disaster" money." Nohero is wrong.. From NY TIMES The Department of Homeland Security announced today that it would distribute $1.7 billion to help states and localities to prepare for terrorist attacks or natural disasters. The $757 million in so-called Urban Area Security Initiative grants was just one piece of a larger $1.7 billion pool of grant funds awarded to states, $500 million less than was available last year and $342 million less than what President Bush had requested that Congress approve." Nohero, why must you always lie? | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 573 Registered: 5-2001 |
another interesting decision from the wise ones: D.C. at Low Risk Of Attack, Says Federal Agency By Mary Beth Sheridan and Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, June 2, 2006; A01 The Department of Homeland Security has ranked the District in a low-risk category of terrorist attack or catastrophe, putting it in the bottom 25 percent of U.S. states and territories, as part of a decision that will cost the city millions in anti-terror funds, according to city and federal officials. The news came as irate officials from New York and Washington demanded explanations for why the department slashed funds in a separate urban anti-terrorism program by 40 percent for the metropolitan areas hit hardest by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out these are two cities still at risk," said D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey. Homeland Security officials said the District had far fewer potential targets than the larger jurisdictions, such as California, it competed against. They said the decisions came after an elaborate process aimed at fairly dividing anti-terror funds. "From a risk perspective, even with all the things that the District of Columbia has versus a New York or a Florida or a California, it's a much different case," said Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training at DHS. The department adopted new, risk-based procedures this year to divide $1.7 billion in 2006 anti-terror funding for states and cities. Officials announced Wednesday that under the biggest program -- involving urban areas -- the capital region's allocation of about $77 million last year would be cut to $46.5 million. D.C. officials, stunned to lose so much money, then got another jolt: Under a smaller program, tailored for states, the District's grant shrank to $4.3 million, from $9.2 million last year. City officials had expected a reduction because funding for the entire program had been halved. But they were shocked by the department's rationale. "They said relative to the other states, the District is not high risk," said Edward D. Reiskin, D.C. deputy mayor for public safety. "It was pretty surprising." Ramsey expressed even more outrage, noting that the District received among the smallest allocations in the country. "Are you going to tell me Rhode Island should get more money than the District of Columbia?" the chief sputtered in an interview on Washington Post Radio. Although the District is home to the White House, the Capitol, FBI headquarters and many national monuments, it received a smaller state grant than Montana, Hawaii and Utah. Each of them received $4.5 million, as did Rhode Island. Henke said the nation's capital ranked in the lowest 25 percent of states and territories in part because it competes with much larger jurisdictions, which have much higher numbers of "critical infrastructure" targets. "When you look at the District of Columbia, you have to look at its scale," she said. In contrast, the Washington region -- including the Virginia and Maryland suburbs -- ranked in the top 25 percent of metropolitan areas for risk, she and other officials said. Henke said she could not provide exact details of how the District's low-risk score was calculated but said it includes factors such as population, vulnerable assets and intelligence information. When asked whether the score included consideration of the Sept. 11 attacks, which included plans to strike either the Capitol or White House, Henke said, "We're looking at the most recent information." Department officials have declined to release a list of risk scores for the jurisdictions vying for funding under its grant programs. The department has also declined to release information about the review panels, made up of law enforcement and homeland security officials from 47 states, whose recommendations were used in making decisions. The risk of attack was not the only factor that went into the grant allocations. States and localities were also judged on the effectiveness of the plans outlined in their applications. And those from the District and the capital region received low marks compared with plans from other jurisdictions, officials said. "They said everything [in the applications] was at or above average, but that it was not as good as most other urban areas' submissions," said Reiskin, who as deputy mayor helped coordinate the process for the District. "So there seems to be an inconsistency there. But the detail is what we haven't really received." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, under fire for the government's response last year to Hurricane Katrina, is facing sharp criticism in the wake of the grant announcements, including resignation demands from the New York Daily News and Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.). Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, announced yesterday that he will hold a hearing on the grants. "We have to understand how this formula spit out numbers that give less money to the National Capital Region," said Robert White, a Davis spokesman. "On the surface, it doesn't make a lot of sense to us." Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said she was asking for a meeting next week with DHS officials to review the reasons for the cuts. And, in a move led by Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), the Washington area's congressional delegation plans to send a letter to Chertoff today decrying the 40 percent reduction in grant funds for the region, according to a draft copy of the letter. "DHS' conclusion that the [Washington region] can absorb such a cut and still provide adequate protection for millions of citizens and visitors is both shortsighted and unacceptable," the letter says. Appearing last night on PBS's "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer," Chertoff said he believed that New York and Washington got "a fair shake." New York and Washington may have been hurt by their relative success in securing potential targets; officials want to "spread the money to other places," Chertoff said. He said New York has received more than $500 million in grants since the Sept. 11 attacks. The Washington region, meanwhile, has received more than $213 million in urban anti-terror grants, records show. Stung by an $83 million cut this year to the city, politicians in New York were fuming. A DHS risk assessment sheet for New York said the home of the Statue of Liberty and other landmarks had zero "national monuments and icons. " The assessment also tallied only four banking and finance institutions worth more than $8 billion. Republican Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's office says there are at least 20. "Maybe the secretary will come meet us at the Empire State Building so we can show him the many national icons in New York," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-New York). Henke said the Statue of Liberty was included in the state risk rating but was not counted in the city rankings at all, in part because the statue is federal property. She also said other landmarks, such as the Brooklyn Bridge or Empire State Building, were counted in other categories, such as bridges or tall buildings. Staff writer Lori Montgomery contributed to this report. © 2006 The Washington Post Company | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7320 Registered: 10-2001 |
Funny how the libs all of a sudden no longer care about port security. All of a sudden this no longer matters.. libs. whichever way the wind blows. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1560 Registered: 10-2005 |
Wait a minute, when did the libs all the sudden become pro-homeland security/WOT? | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 85 Registered: 2-2006 |
Hey, Straw, did you get through the rainstorm OK?  | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5466 Registered: 10-1999 |
You know, anyone who wants to accuse me of lying, should really get the facts right. From the article quoted above - "The $757 million in so-called Urban Area Security Initiative grants was just one piece of a larger $1.7 billion pool of grant funds awarded to states". Let's see - $757 million divided by 1.7 billion - move the decimal point, 17 gozinta 75 4 times, 4 times 17 is 68, 75 minus 68 is (um, borrow one from the tens spot, 15 minus 8 is 7) 17 gozinta 77 4 times, etc - is 44.529 percent. That means that almost 45 percent is distributed through the Urban Area Security Initiative. According to DHS - "Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program (UASI) funds address the unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high threat, high density urban areas, and assist them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism." http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/states.htm#moreinfo Those are the funds which were cut for New York City. See, it wasn't so hard to find that out. Even Fox News could learn those facts, if they tried.  As for Mr. SLK, who asks, "Wait a minute, when did the libs all the sudden become pro-homeland security/WOT?" - The "libs" have always been pro-homeland security, and for the real "war on terror" - but the Administration seemed to have dropped those, so that they could invade Iraq instead. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3379 Registered: 5-2001 |
Libs have been hollering the loudest about the glaring omissions in protections for ports, nuclear facilities, transportations hubs, and other domestic assets. It seems that there is no liberal position that wingnuts will not misrepresent in order to criticize it. That is SO weak. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7321 Registered: 10-2001 |
Nohero is now trying to argue that funds were cut from NY..Let me save you some time on that one.. We already know since it's already been documented. Despite this, I enjoyed your last post.. Made me smile. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5467 Registered: 10-1999 |
"Nohero is now trying to argue that funds were cut from NY..Let me save you some time on that one.. We already know since it's already been documented." Yes, but some people seem to want us all to accept it without complaint. I can't understand why anyone who lives around here, would support cutting anti-terror aid for NYC. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7322 Registered: 10-2001 |
You mean you oppose the increased funding for Newark? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3381 Registered: 5-2001 |
Perhaps Straw and those like him want to lower our defenses a bit so that there will be another attack which will justify more warfare against somebody, somewhere. Anything to keep this administration from twisting in the wind as it is currently. (Which is certainly no worse an attitude than what he has accused "libs" of at various times.) | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 274 Registered: 11-2005 |
Homeland Security; New York gets less $$...."Mission Accomplished." Another one by the Great Decider. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7324 Registered: 10-2001 |
Notehead, So you're disappointed Newark got an increase to protect the ports? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9698 Registered: 4-1997  |
I'm predicting an Orange Alert in Lincoln, NE any day now. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7325 Registered: 10-2001 |
seriously places like Lincoln, Nebraska, Oklahoma City etc. never see terror attacks | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 86 Registered: 2-2006 |
This Afternoon: Rain likely and possibly a thunderstorm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall.....  Straw, Straw!................don't look up, Straw! | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3384 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hard to see how you might have gotten that impression from anything I've said, Straw. I'm glad to see more money go to Newark. |
