DHS handling of Security Grants called incompetent

[raVeneyes]

Rep. Carolyn Mahoney of New York...accused the Bush administration of "incompetence" on homeland security.

"I expect the president to tell Secretary Chertoff, 'Heck of a job, Mikey.' " she said.

----------------------------

These quotes are in response to the increases for low risk areas and decreases in high risk areas funding from the Department of Homeland Security this year.

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

 

[MAC1]

It looks like the funds are being redistributed so other states so they have more for security. Also, N.Y. State has a 2 billion dollar surplus to make up the difference.

Sounds like more moaning and complaining from democrats. There they go again, another talking point.

 

[fossten]

Must we continue to disprove the notion that just throwing government money at a problem automatically ensures it's resolution?

Get a clue, libs.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Must we continue to disprove the notion that just throwing government money at a problem automatically ensures it's resolution?

Get a clue, libs.

Better wash that brown overspray off your rose colored glasses..........

Outrage came from members of both parties in New York, where GOP Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said "DHS and the administration have declared war on New York City."

"Libs" and "Dems" aren't the only ones that think this is a bad idea.

 

[fossten]

Better wash that brown overspray off your rose colored glasses..........

...Apparently your rose colored glasses have some brown overspray on them.

Methinks somebody doth protest too much.

Johnny, you're getting pretty trite. (see dictionary)

It's not a surprise that a Congressman is upset that he's not getting more money for his state or district. What's surprising is that you don't know anything about baseline budgeting. The fact is that New York is getting a larger piece of the pie than any other state. They are griping because they aren't getting as much as they did before.

Again, you still don't know how to argue the point, so you attack the person. Can you even debate the substance of the argument about throwing money at the problem, or are you limited to glib, empty rhetoric?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Again, you still don't know how to argue the point, so you attack the person. Can you even debate the substance of the argument about throwing money at the problem, or are you limited to glib, empty rhetoric?

No attack was made, only pointing out your inability to see past your hate towards Democrats and Liberals to reveal the truth of this matter, that being that the complaints are coming from both sides.

Certainly, generally speaking, "throwing money" at problems does not guarantee their resolution. But cutting funding almost always results in a worsening of the problem. Given the choice, it is usually smarter to at least give it a chance of success, rather than doom it to failure.