http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507/NEWS05/705070340
Here in New York, right after 9/11, the police got millions to spy on ordinary citizens, but the fire department was so underfunded that many station houses were shut down and firemen laid off. Until Hillary stepped up to the plate, the fire department and police still did not have walky -alkies that could communicate with each other.
More funds were given to states that were not obvious targets than the states with clear needs. When real distaters have struck, such as Katrina, it has been clear that homeland security achieves nothing by way of securing the homeland.
Homeland security, from the outset has been a an obvious nest of corruption, pork and bad priorities. Tell us what you know of how funds were spent in your state.
2007-05-07 04:57:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The gubmint: that's an astonishingly inaccurate answer. The DHS was shoved down the congress's throat. They were not even given time to read the patriot act, and to question the Bush Administration, who created the DHS, was considered nearly treasonous. Yours is a perfect example of standard Bushie avoidance of facts.
2007-05-07 07:10:05 · update #1
Eddie J: Actually I don't support Hillary for President, but the facts are as stated. She was the one who freed up the funding for the NY fire Dept. after the Bush Gov. renegged on their promises.
2007-05-07 07:11:48 · update #2
I live in the Midwest, where I don't think we get very much funding. Like the war on Iraq, Homeland Security needs an independent investigation of how badly funds were spent and mismanaged. It astounds me that Congress hasn't called for this yet.
2007-05-07 05:05:48 · answer #1 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Historically, cutting taxes actually increases government revenue through economic growth. Raising taxes stifles the economy and actually reduces your tax base. It's a balancing act, and I am not sure we are good at it, but it is true up to a point. The way to reduce our federal deficit, is to reduce spending. We can't possibly tax our way out of it, we have to cut back. It's that increased funding that has to stop for a while.
2016-05-17 10:01:07 · answer #2 · answered by brianne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Some get too greedy and take money for personal advantage when it's suppose to be used for something else!
2007-05-07 05:04:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I can't justify it, but the Bush Administration has to be held accountable for it.
2007-05-07 05:17:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much the same way we justify almost all of the rest of the money our governments (at all levels) spend.
2007-05-07 05:04:12 · answer #5 · answered by Ben 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If the Dems had listened to President Bush in the first place, we wouldn't have the DHS to worry about. Ask for a huge monolithic bureaucracy, and you get a huge monolithic bureaucracy.
2007-05-07 05:04:36 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Accountability....Bush uses the word for everybody but himself!
2007-05-07 05:35:49 · answer #7 · answered by Gipper 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's this - ANOTHER Queen Hillary the Great is Gonna Save Us advertisement?
2007-05-07 05:06:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just another example of why we should *not* let the government take over health care.
Large bureaucracies *never* function well. Never.
2007-05-07 05:04:26 · answer #9 · answered by Jadis 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That would require some effort and we Americans are not known for that trait?
2007-05-07 05:03:57 · answer #10 · answered by Gypsy Gal 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋