Originally posted by: nowareman
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I'm not sure your point then, of saying that you feel you pay more and get less. My comments were on welfare in the traditional sense. Welfare programs for the poor and such.
I have been quite consistent in my call for accountability as far as entitlements go. Nobody should get a "free ride" no matter who or what they are. See my Boeing stance, see my Farm subsity stance(well you can't because i haven't gone into that much, see my traditional welfare stance, and also my SS stance.
Every program - Every dollar should be held accountable.
Your OP seems to try to set up the strawman that the Iraq spending would be spent over here if it wasn't spent over there. That is simply NOT the case. If we need to spend more on security here - then that's what we need to do, but I think that we already spend(and waste) too much money on it because they aren't all held to account. The Iraq situation is entirely removed from this and is an "add-on" not a "take away from" deal.
Notice your OP and reread the last few words.
I'd like to see the real numbers and proposals and the history of funding to them all. I have a hunch that these "percentages" and such are being blown out of proportion and being skewed to fit an agenda. More info is need to be able even remotely think as the writer wants you to.
CkG
PS - bitch and moan about deficit spending - then bitch about underfunding Wow - whodda thunk it.
At least take the time to read and understand the link before you start your partisan nonsense. The money that is proposed to be spent in Iraq would be spent here. It is an add on and take away deal.
"The Bush administration's priorities for funding homeland security and the Iraq occupation could come at the expense of public safety in America's cash-strapped cities, mayors and police chiefs warned on Friday.
At an international police convention attended by senior administration officials, municipal leaders said they face potentially drastic cuts of nearly $1 billion in annual federal funds for community policing as Congress tries to cope with budget constraints posed by looming federal deficits.
"We're already starting to see the impact of not having sufficient funds," said Richmond, California, Police Chief Joseph Samuels, who heads the International Association of Chiefs of Police, or IACP.
His organization and the U.S. Conference of Mayors accused Congress, supported by the Bush administration, of contemplating cuts in police funding to pay for homeland security readiness programs for local police and firefighters.
The group was also quick to point out that annual funds available to U.S. cities through a Clinton-era community policing program and a Nixon-era block grant program nearly equal the $950 million that President Bush plans to spend on public safety development in Iraq."
Also I'm not sure what you are referring to in your PS but I didn't mention anything about deficit spending in relation to underfunding. You are confusing your pat partisan responses. Stick to the subject. The money going to Iraq will be taken from money spent on homeland security and readiness programs for police and fire departments. The level you raise partisanship to is incredible when you ignore the basic police and fire services people depend on and defend spending money for those programs in Iraq instead.