Spending on Security, Iraq Seen Hurting U.S. Cities

[nowareman]

Bye bye Miss American pie.

Slicing up the pie exposes limitations. Tough choices coming for Americans at home vs. rebuilding Iraq.

Spending on Security, Iraq Seen Hurting U.S. Cities

"But Samuels predicted that budget proposals in Congress to cut community policing funds by 50 percent and block grants by 60 percent would bring job cuts to state and local police forces that employ 700,000 officers.

The federal programs provide police departments with money for hiring, redeployment, overtime, equipment, crime and drug prevention programs as well as communications initiatives.

Proposed cuts, which could be enacted between now and Thanksgiving, would mean problems for cities that spend up to two-thirds of their budgets on public safety and already face slackening tax revenues due to a soft economy, officials said."

 

[FelixDeCat]

ooo

 

[nowareman]

No security at home = no security at home.

If we can't afford to protect our own how can we afford to protect others?

 

[glenn1]

Most Americans now reside in suburbia and could care less. Even those who live in the nicer parts of cities have basically written off the inner city completely. America wrote off the poor in the inner cities long ago and have long since only attempted to buy their silence with the patronizing "welfare" system that has been put into place without expecting a damn thing in way of behavioral change from the recipients. It's not about giving the poor a "hand up rather than a handout" like they like to say, it's hush money pure and simple.

Personally, i think the cities have been lavished with enough spending already and think it's time to administer some tough love and turn off the $ tap. The left needs to stop screaming about how we need to spend more money on the cities since the money we've spent already hasn't done a damn thing. After they money has been cut off, maybe the poor in the inner cities can finally be allowed to reach the "rock bottom" point where internal change is possible. When the residents decide they've had enough and want to change their lifestyle and behavior, then maybe we'll be able to offer assistance that will actually help. When that change happens, the right needs to get off their freaking high horse and start putting some money to work.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Most Americans now reside in suburbia and could care less. Even those who live in the nicer parts of cities have basically written off the inner city completely. America wrote off the poor in the inner cities long ago and have long since only attempted to buy their silence with the patronizing "welfare" system that has been put into place without expecting a damn thing in way of behavioral change from the recipients. It's not about giving the poor a "hand up rather than a handout" like they like to say, it's hush money pure and simple.

Personally, i think the cities have been lavished with enough spending already and think it's time to administer some tough love and turn off the $ tap. The left needs to stop screaming about how we need to spend more money on the cities since the money we've spent already hasn't done a damn thing. After they money has been cut off, maybe the poor in the inner cities can finally be allowed to reach the "rock bottom" point where internal change is possible. When the residents decide they've had enough and want to change their lifestyle and behavior, then maybe we'll be able to offer assistance that will actually help. When that change happens, the right needs to get off their freaking high horse and start putting some money to work.

I don't know where you live but in the cities around here in the northeast people are working not collecting welfare. We're contributing more to the US than we are getting back and a lot of that goes to suburbia and farm states. So you can get off your high horse and stop the 1980 rhetoric. We're putting money to work and if not for us the residents of rural areas wouldn't be enjoying the standard of living they are enjoying now. So stop the divisive disinformation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: glenn1
Most Americans now reside in suburbia and could care less. Even those who live in the nicer parts of cities have basically written off the inner city completely. America wrote off the poor in the inner cities long ago and have long since only attempted to buy their silence with the patronizing "welfare" system that has been put into place without expecting a damn thing in way of behavioral change from the recipients. It's not about giving the poor a "hand up rather than a handout" like they like to say, it's hush money pure and simple.

Personally, i think the cities have been lavished with enough spending already and think it's time to administer some tough love and turn off the $ tap. The left needs to stop screaming about how we need to spend more money on the cities since the money we've spent already hasn't done a damn thing. After they money has been cut off, maybe the poor in the inner cities can finally be allowed to reach the "rock bottom" point where internal change is possible. When the residents decide they've had enough and want to change their lifestyle and behavior, then maybe we'll be able to offer assistance that will actually help. When that change happens, the right needs to get off their freaking high horse and start putting some money to work.

I don't know where you live but in the cities around here in the northeast people are working not collecting welfare. We're contributing more to the US than we are getting back and a lot of that goes to suburbia and farm states. So you can get off your high horse and stop the 1980 rhetoric. We're putting money to work and if not for us the residents of rural areas wouldn't be enjoying the standard of living they are enjoying now. So stop the divisive disinformation.

You aren't serious, are you? 1980 rhetoric? Glenn1 is absolutely right. Handouts aren't a hand-up. Throwing more money isn't going to solve the problem because it is the "entitlement" mindset that is the problem. People need to start taking charge of their own lives and well-being, and not always looking towards the gov't to take care of them. It's not only welfare - it's much bigger than that one issue. People now days think they are "entitled" to things - instead of actually having to work towards what they want. Now as for welfare - I have no problem with helping those who CAN'T help themselves - I just have a problem with those that WON'T help themselves(except helping themselves to gov't entitlements) We need a welfare system - but not the bureaucracy that hampers it's usefulness.

CkG

 

[glenn1]

I don't know where you live but in the cities around here in the northeast people are working not collecting welfare. We're contributing more to the US than we are getting back and a lot of that goes to suburbia and farm states. So you can get off your high horse and stop the 1980 rhetoric. We're putting money to work and if not for us the residents of rural areas wouldn't be enjoying the standard of living they are enjoying now. So stop the divisive disinformation.

WTF? What planet do you live on? I grew up in the Northeast, just south of Philadelphia. All the residents of the cities are working and don't collect welfare? Are you on crack or something? That is the stupidest fu##ing thing i've ever heard on these forums.

You're putting money to work? You might want to read a newspaper. The cities are screaming bloody murder to be bailed out by the feds. The northeast cities in particular are being emptied out by "white flight" and your tax base decimated by your own city government's assinine tax policies.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You aren't serious, are you? 1980 rhetoric? Glenn1 is absolutely right. Handouts aren't a hand-up. Throwing more money isn't going to solve the problem because it is the "entitlement" mindset that is the problem. People need to start taking charge of their own lives and well-being, and not always looking towards the gov't to take care of them. It's not only welfare - it's much bigger than that one issue. People now days think they are "entitled" to things - instead of actually having to work towards what they want. Now as for welfare - I have no problem with helping those who CAN'T help themselves - I just have a problem with those that WON'T help themselves(except helping themselves to gov't entitlements) We need a welfare system - but not the bureaucracy that hampers it's usefulness.

CkG

I am completely serious. The problem is Glenn 1 and I suppose you too are talking as though only cities are getting money you consider entitlements. If you want to be fair and stop all entitlements then be fair and stop the farm subsidies and the pork sent to rural areas as well. Stop trying to make it sound as though it's only the cities that are getting money from Washington. That just isn't true. If you don't like entitlements complain about all of them. Not just the ones you disagree with or the ones that are for cities. That isn't fair and it isn't true. And besides if you read the article it's about police departments being funded and security. Money for police, fire and emergency services can hardly be compared with welfare but you both are trying to make it sound like cities are surviving on welfare. That is just nonsense. This is about police and security for cities. The kind of security that could prevent another 9/11. Not about your partisan bickering and nonsense.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You aren't serious, are you? 1980 rhetoric? Glenn1 is absolutely right. Handouts aren't a hand-up. Throwing more money isn't going to solve the problem because it is the "entitlement" mindset that is the problem. People need to start taking charge of their own lives and well-being, and not always looking towards the gov't to take care of them. It's not only welfare - it's much bigger than that one issue. People now days think they are "entitled" to things - instead of actually having to work towards what they want. Now as for welfare - I have no problem with helping those who CAN'T help themselves - I just have a problem with those that WON'T help themselves(except helping themselves to gov't entitlements) We need a welfare system - but not the bureaucracy that hampers it's usefulness.

CkG

I am completely serious. The problem is Glenn 1 and I suppose you too are talking as though only cities are getting money you consider entitlements. If you want to be fair and stop all entitlements then be fair and stop the farm subsidies and the pork sent to rural areas as well. Stop trying to make it sound as though it's only the cities that are getting money from Washington. That just isn't true. If you don't like entitlements complain about all of them. Not just the ones you disagree with or the ones that are for cities. That isn't fair and it isn't true. And besides if you read the article it's about police departments being funded and security. Money for police, fire and emergency services can hardly be compared with welfare but you both are trying to make it sound like cities are surviving on welfare. That is just nonsense. This is about police and security for cities. The kind of security that could prevent another 9/11. Not about your partisan bickering and nonsense.

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.

 

[sbp]

I also live in the Northeast. There's plenty of welfare cases in DC and Baltimore. :disgust:

"Spending on Security, Iraq Seen Hurting U.S. Cities" Yeah its not like government spends {and wastes} mucho money on many other things besides national security.

 

[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.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nowareman

I don't know where you live but in the cities around here in the northeast people are working not collecting welfare. We're contributing more to the US than we are getting back and a lot of that goes to suburbia and farm states. So you can get off your high horse and stop the 1980 rhetoric. We're putting money to work and if not for us the residents of rural areas wouldn't be enjoying the standard of living they are enjoying now. So stop the divisive disinformation.

actually the NE traditionally gets back more than they put in, while the mountain states usually get less

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nowareman

I don't know where you live but in the cities around here in the northeast people are working not collecting welfare. We're contributing more to the US than we are getting back and a lot of that goes to suburbia and farm states. So you can get off your high horse and stop the 1980 rhetoric. We're putting money to work and if not for us the residents of rural areas wouldn't be enjoying the standard of living they are enjoying now. So stop the divisive disinformation.

actually the NE traditionally gets back more than they put in, while the mountain states usually get less

That is absolutely false. I want to see the data to back up that lie. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusettes all pay more into the federal treasury than is returned to them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

You are a special one aren't you nowareman

You don't seem to understand how budgetary things get worked out nor do you seem to understand that "cuts" aren't always true "cuts". There is little to no data to back up any of the claims in the article - WHICH I READ.

No, the money wouldn't be spent here - if you believe that ...I have some real prime coastal property to sell you. It's not a thing where we'd take the 87B in spending and just dump it somewhere else to spend There isn't the direct correlation you and the author are trying to make. There is a 2.2Trillion dollar budget - spending on one item isn't directly tied to spending on another. Now yes there are some things that are higher priorities as far as budgets are concerned but for you to say that Iraq spending is the cause of security cuts here at home is assinine and not grounded in reality.

Heh- you also don't understand stand what paritsan means - I've seen you throw that term around wildly but you don't seem to have a clue. Pointing out that people bitch about deficits and then turn around and bitch about underfunding their pet project is not a partisan thing - it's an if the shoe fits - wear it. It happens on both sides. Like defense spending, some of the spending hawks here and in Congress don't think that we should cut defense spending but yet yap about deficits or overall gov't spending. Basically everyone likes to bitch about funding - especially if it adversly affects their project.

The money that is going to Iraq - is NOT coming out of the same funds that were or will be appropriated to homeland security for the local cities. It is NOT a partisan issue - why can't you understand that. THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO EACH OTHER. got it? It's the same straw-man BS people tried to play earlier with their education rant. Boo hoo education funds are low, but yet we spend the money in Iraq - as if the money for Iraq would be spent on Education instead

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You are a special one aren't you nowareman

You don't seem to understand how budgetary things get worked out nor do you seem to understand that "cuts" aren't always true "cuts". There is little to no data to back up any of the claims in the article - WHICH I READ.

No, the money wouldn't be spent here - if you believe that ...I have some real prime coastal property to sell you. It's not a thing where we'd take the 87B in spending and just dump it somewhere else to spend There isn't the direct correlation you and the author are trying to make. There is a 2.2Trillion dollar budget - spending on one item isn't directly tied to spending on another. Now yes there are some things that are higher priorities as far as budgets are concerned but for you to say that Iraq spending is the cause of security cuts here at home is assinine and not grounded in reality.

Heh- you also don't understand stand what paritsan means - I've seen you throw that term around wildly but you don't seem to have a clue. Pointing out that people bitch about deficits and then turn around and bitch about underfunding their pet project is not a partisan thing - it's an if the shoe fits - wear it. It happens on both sides. Like defense spending, some of the spending hawks here and in Congress don't think that we should cut defense spending but yet yap about deficits or overall gov't spending. Basically everyone likes to bitch about funding - especially if it adversly affects their project.

The money that is going to Iraq - is NOT coming out of the same funds that were or will be appropriated to homeland security for the local cities. It is NOT a partisan issue - why can't you understand that. THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO EACH OTHER. got it? It's the same straw-man BS people tried to play earlier with their education rant. Boo hoo education funds are low, but yet we spend the money in Iraq - as if the money for Iraq would be spent on Education instead

CkG

We aren't talking about education here. You go from partisan rants to personal attack but fail to address the facts.

"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."

Police and fire departments are facing $1bn in cuts of federal funds. The cuts are due to budget constraints from federal deficits. What is the cause of the deficits that are forcing the cuts? Where is the money being spent that would have been spent on police and fire departments here at home? Money can't just be created out of thin air. It must be paid back someday. Congress is spending money on Iraq at the cost of funding police and fire departments here. I guess Americans won't mind providing for the safety of Iraqis at the cost of their own safety.

 

[glenn1]

Where is the money being spent that would have been spent on police and fire departments here at home?

Jeez, you are a slow one.

If we WANTED to give money to the cities, we'd find the money. We DON'T want to give the money to the cities. You keep on quoting from the article like it's God's truth or something. Just because the International Association of Chiefs of Police has that point of view that if we weren't spending money in Iraq that we'd spend it on pork for the cities doesn't mean it's true.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Where is the money being spent that would have been spent on police and fire departments here at home?

Jeez, you are a slow one.

If we WANTED to give money to the cities, we'd find the money. We DON'T want to give the money to the cities. You keep on quoting from the article like it's God's truth or something. Just because the International Association of Chiefs of Police has that point of view that if we weren't spending money in Iraq that we'd spend it on pork for the cities doesn't mean it's true.

Do you really consider essential services like police and fire pork? During the 80s and 90s politicians tripped over each other trying to prove they were tougher on crime. They made a center piece of their anti-crime ligislation putting more police on the street. Now you are calling that pork? That is simply ridiculous. I'll take the word of the IACP over the budget games being played in Washington in the face of record deficits and rebuilding Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: glenn1

Where is the money being spent that would have been spent on police and fire departments here at home?

Jeez, you are a slow one.

If we WANTED to give money to the cities, we'd find the money. We DON'T want to give the money to the cities. You keep on quoting from the article like it's God's truth or something. Just because the International Association of Chiefs of Police has that point of view that if we weren't spending money in Iraq that we'd spend it on pork for the cities doesn't mean it's true.

Do you really consider essential services like police and fire pork? During the 80s and 90s politicians tripped over each other trying to prove they were tougher on crime. They made a center piece of their anti-crime ligislation putting more police on the street. Now you are calling that pork? That is simply ridiculous. I'll take the word of the IACP over the budget games being played in Washington in the face of record deficits and rebuilding Iraq.

You just don't get it - do you. It isn't the fact that we're spending in Iraq, that the cities aren't being funded. It isn't an either-or type of situation. Now as much as you are trying to make things a "partisan" issue - none of them have been. The education reference was to try to give you another example of using a strawman to argue that the money could have been spent on it instead of Iraq - when that money wouldn't have been spent on education in the first place.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Are you actually trying to say that when budget items are being decided on congress ignores an $87 bn expenditure? That they don't consider a $375 bn deficit when deciding on how much they can spend? That's just ridiculous. I know when we sit at the kitchen table and work out our budget we have to take all our spending into consideration and I'm sure the rules are the same for government on a bigger scale. If the money isn't there it can't be spent or you have to add more to an already record deficit. Add to that the money being spent on Iraq reconstruction. Those are the reasons the US can't fund security right here at home and it's a disgrace.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
Are you actually trying to say that when budget items are being decided on congress ignores an $87 bn expenditure? That they don't consider a $375 bn deficit when deciding on how much they can spend? That's just ridiculous. I know when we sit at the kitchen table and work out our budget we have to take all our spending into consideration and I'm sure the rules are the same for government on a bigger scale. If the money isn't there it can't be spent or you have to add more to an already record deficit. Add to that the money being spent on Iraq reconstruction. Those are the reasons the US can't fund security right here at home and it's a disgrace.

Yep, pretty much. The gov't doesn't do it's books like you and I do. And for you or someone else to draw direct correlations between funding one thing and "cutting" others is innaccurate.

FWIW - I feel the gov't should have to do it's books like we do(with maybe just a little play), but until we force them to - they won't. And that is the fault of ALL of them and ALL of us.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
Are you actually trying to say that when budget items are being decided on congress ignores an $87 bn expenditure? That they don't consider a $375 bn deficit when deciding on how much they can spend? That's just ridiculous. I know when we sit at the kitchen table and work out our budget we have to take all our spending into consideration and I'm sure the rules are the same for government on a bigger scale. If the money isn't there it can't be spent or you have to add more to an already record deficit. Add to that the money being spent on Iraq reconstruction. Those are the reasons the US can't fund security right here at home and it's a disgrace.

Yep, pretty much. The gov't doesn't do it's books like you and I do. And for you or someone else to draw direct correlations between funding one thing and "cutting" others is innaccurate.

FWIW - I feel the gov't should have to do it's books like we do(with maybe just a little play), but until we force them to - they won't. And that is the fault of ALL of them and ALL of us.

CkG

That is a cop out. The money spent in Iraq is having a direct effect on budgeting for essential services right here at home.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
That is a cop out. The money spent in Iraq is having a direct effect on budgeting for essential services right here at home.

No it's not a cop out. You don't seem to understand how things work and I suggest you learn how they do. The $75 for Iraq back in April was a supplemental appropriation for FY2003. The 2004 budget is already set and this new round of Iraq funding will be added to the already approved FY2004 budget. Read up on budgetary issues - it's quite interesting...and sometimes disheartening - depending on which way you look at things. But one thing is for sure - there is no direct correlation between these two spending items.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
That is a cop out. The money spent in Iraq is having a direct effect on budgeting for essential services right here at home.

No it's not a cop out. You don't seem to understand how things work and I suggest you learn how they do. The $75 for Iraq back in April was a supplemental appropriation for FY2003. The 2004 budget is already set and this new round of Iraq funding will be added to the already approved FY2004 budget. Read up on budgetary issues - it's quite interesting...and sometimes disheartening - depending on which way you look at things. But one thing is for sure - there is no direct correlation between these two spending items.

CkG

The $75 bn wasn't included in the budget deficit for 2003 since it was a supplemental appropriation. Now we are about to spend another $87 bn. Don't try to tell me $162 bn out of the US treasury doesn't directly affect spending right here at home.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
That is a cop out. The money spent in Iraq is having a direct effect on budgeting for essential services right here at home.

No it's not a cop out. You don't seem to understand how things work and I suggest you learn how they do. The $75 for Iraq back in April was a supplemental appropriation for FY2003. The 2004 budget is already set and this new round of Iraq funding will be added to the already approved FY2004 budget. Read up on budgetary issues - it's quite interesting...and sometimes disheartening - depending on which way you look at things. But one thing is for sure - there is no direct correlation between these two spending items.

CkG

The $75 bn wasn't included in the budget deficit for 2003 since it was a supplemental appropriation. Now we are about to spend another $87 bn. Don't try to tell me $162 bn out of the US treasury doesn't directly affect spending right here at home.

Yes the $75B was part of the FY2003 Budget and is a part of the FY2003 deficit too.

You just need to drop this - you aren't gaining any ground with your flailing. $162(it was 157 in the other thread
) There is NO direct correlation between spending the money in Iraq and spending that money(75B, 87B, 157B, 162B) on things like cops. The two aren't tied together. Just because Iraq got $X doesn't mean that cops got Y-X. (where Y=normal budget and X=money spent in Iraq).
Got it yet?

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nowareman
That is a cop out. The money spent in Iraq is having a direct effect on budgeting for essential services right here at home.

No it's not a cop out. You don't seem to understand how things work and I suggest you learn how they do. The $75 for Iraq back in April was a supplemental appropriation for FY2003. The 2004 budget is already set and this new round of Iraq funding will be added to the already approved FY2004 budget. Read up on budgetary issues - it's quite interesting...and sometimes disheartening - depending on which way you look at things. But one thing is for sure - there is no direct correlation between these two spending items.

CkG

The $75 bn wasn't included in the budget deficit for 2003 since it was a supplemental appropriation. Now we are about to spend another $87 bn. Don't try to tell me $162 bn out of the US treasury doesn't directly affect spending right here at home.

Yes the $75B was part of the FY2003 Budget and is a part of the FY2003 deficit too.

You just need to drop this - you aren't gaining any ground with your flailing. $162(it was 157 in the other thread
) There is NO direct correlation between spending the money in Iraq and spending that money(75B, 87B, 157B, 162B) on things like cops. The two aren't tied together. Just because Iraq got $X doesn't mean that cops got Y-X. (where Y=normal budget and X=money spent in Iraq).
Got it yet?

CkG

I used the figures you posted and they added up to $162 bn. Were your figures innacurate? Congress if facing a $375 bn deficit and $1 bn that was spent on law enforcement last year is in jeopardy of being cut which will lead to either cities having to raise the money themselves or cuts in police and fire departments. I want to know how they will explain spending $162 bn in Iraq to the American people the next time there is an emergency and there aren't sufficient first responders due to cuts at home. Iraq was Iraq's problem until we made it our problem. Now we are facing economic problems at home and no one is going to convince me they aren't due to the money we are wasting trying to do nation building over there. Iraq was no threat to anyone no matter how many times we are told they were. The Iraqi army barely put up any defense and were not going to attack anyone in their pitiful state. The supposed weapons Iraq had are a joke. They had none. The terrorist ties were the product of someone's overactive imagine. Now we are left holding the bag and it's definitely hurting us at home in our spending for essential programs. You won't convince me otherwise and anyone who doesn't make the connection is just fooling themselves.