• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should obama rethink his funding cut for domestic terrorism

Should obama return the domestic terrorism budget to what it was under bush

  • yes, it may have stopped this and other bombings

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • No, a domestic terrorism budget is a waste of money

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Total voters
    8

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama cut funding for preventing domestic terrorism nearly in half. Bush had it at 20 million and obama slashed it to 11 million. Should he refund the program in light of the Boston bombing.

"Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had $20 million allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by terrorists working inside the United States. The current White House has cut that funding down to $11 million.

That assessment comes from Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15 that killed three Americans and injured at least 173 others.

He told MailOnline that the Obama-era DHS is, on the whole, about as well-positioned as it was during the Bush administration to handle the aftermath of the April 15 bombings in Boston, 'but the Obama administration has continued to cut the budget for offices such as the Office for Bombing Prevention from $20 million started under Bush, to $11 million today.'


Read more: Obama administration has SLASHED budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45 per cent, says former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary | Mail Online
 
Should you make troll polls?

Yes?
No?
 
It's a simple and honest question, the kind you libs seem to hate.

Should I take at face value that the 9 million was being spent wisely? According to conservative reasoning on the nature of government, it is at least possible the money was graft and slashing it did not affect the efficiency of our responses to domestic terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Should I take at face value that the 9 million was being spent wisely? According to conservative reasoning on the nature of government, it is at least possible the money was graft and slashing it did not affect the efficiency of our responses to domestic terrorism.

So I'll put you in the no column. I myself think Bush wasn't spending enough and obama cutting even that pittance is somewhat disturbing. He should at least put back the money he took out in light of what just happened.
 
So I'll put you in the no column. I myself think Bush wasn't spending enough and obama cutting even that pittance is somewhat disturbing. He should at least put back the money he took out in light of what just happened.


Based on what? The number behind the dollar sign?

Having a huge domestic terrorism budget is pointless when you can't apply expensive technologies like drones or surveillance satellites against them.
 
Based on what? The number behind the dollar sign?

Having a huge domestic terrorism budget is pointless when you can't apply expensive technologies like drones or surveillance satellites against them.

Intelligence is paramount in these kinds of things, drones and satellites are completely useless.
 
Intelligence is paramount in these kinds of things, drones and satellites are completely useless.

According to popular perception, the extensive airport examinations that have begun to lapse due to loss of funds were pointlessly intrusive.

Anyway, the point is that the action that can be taken against American civilians and even residents is highly regulated even under the Patriot Act. You can only produce as much information as you are legally empowered to produce.
 
According to popular perception, the extensive airport examinations that have begun to lapse due to loss of funds were pointlessly intrusive.

Anyway, the point is that the action that can be taken against American civilians and even residents is highly regulated even under the Patriot Act. You can only produce as much information as you are legally empowered to produce.

IMO cutting funds for preventing the use of IED type weapons in times like these is insane. I think what just happened in Boston should be a wake up call.
 
Not very "simple and honest" when you put things like this at the end "a domestic terrorism budget is a waste of money"
This is what we like to call a Push Poll


Im not a "lib"

If you don't like the poll choices feel free to express your honest opinion on the subject.
 
If you don't like the poll choices feel free to express your honest opinion on the subject.

I think it should be cut but i dont think its a "Waste of money". And no matter how much money we spend on fighting any sort of terrorism it will still be around.
 
Spend more money to devise more ways to watch us all at every given moment. More cameras, more drones, more scanners, more armed bureaucrats, more searches all in the elusive quest for more safety.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
IMO cutting funds for preventing the use of IED type weapons in times like these is insane. I think what just happened in Boston should be a wake up call.
Oh? You want to ban guns because of Newtown, too? LOL!

It's the same logic and just as flawed in both cases.
 
There should be a choice "The President doesn't write the budget; Congress does"

That is true but the President does have some choice as to how some of that money is spent, Congress can give an agency or a department like DHS a general fund to use at its discretion or it can fund specific programs directly. Which this is who knows.
 
Obama cut funding for preventing domestic terrorism nearly in half. Bush had it at 20 million and obama slashed it to 11 million. Should he refund the program in light of the Boston bombing.

"Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had $20 million allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by terrorists working inside the United States. The current White House has cut that funding down to $11 million.

That assessment comes from Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15 that killed three Americans and injured at least 173 others.

He told MailOnline that the Obama-era DHS is, on the whole, about as well-positioned as it was during the Bush administration to handle the aftermath of the April 15 bombings in Boston, 'but the Obama administration has continued to cut the budget for offices such as the Office for Bombing Prevention from $20 million started under Bush, to $11 million today.'


Read more: Obama administration has SLASHED budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45 per cent, says former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary | Mail Online

In your opinion,how much would be the right amount to spend? Let's say we spent 50 million how would that prevent these types of bombings? How much money does safety cost and how much surveillance do you think is required on the citizens to prevent these types of things from happening. Are you willing to be stopped and searched everytime you leave your house or job. How about when you're walking down the street and a cop just wants to search you for bombs?
 
Obama tells the dept of homeland security where to spend the money congress allocates to them.

Not really, Congress is heavily involved in Homeland Security. They created the monster.
 
In your opinion,how much would be the right amount to spend? Let's say we spent 50 million how would that prevent these types of bombings? How much money does safety cost and how much surveillance do you think is required on the citizens to prevent these types of things from happening. Are you willing to be stopped and searched everytime you leave your house or job. How about when you're walking down the street and a cop just wants to search you for bombs?

IMO that was the LAST place to cut spending!
 
Not really, Congress is heavily involved in Homeland Security. They created the monster.

Congress allocates the money to certain departments. Homeland security cut the domestic terror budget in half during the obama administration. Weather he specifically told them to do so is hard to know but they did it under his watch so he knew and either asked it be done or gave it the nod, either way.....
 
IMO that was the LAST place to cut spending!

You didn't answer any of the questions:In your opinion,how much would be the right amount to spend?
Let's say we spent 50 million how would that prevent these types of bombings?
How much money does safety cost and how much surveillance do you think is required on the citizens to prevent these types of things from happening?
Are you willing to be stopped and searched everytime you leave your house or job?
How about when you're walking down the street and a cop just wants to search you for bombs?
 
From the title of the thread, I thought Obama was now funding domestic terrorism, not just breeding it with his policies.
 
Congress allocates the money to certain departments. Homeland security cut the domestic terror budget in half during the obama administration. Weather he specifically told them to do so is hard to know but they did it under his watch so he knew and either asked it be done or gave it the nod, either way.....


Congress can earmark where the funds are too be spent. IE, X amount for TSA, X amount for Border Security, etc... They can also reduce the amounts for these areas. To put all the blame one one person or party is not being honest
 
Back
Top Bottom