• 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
BMCM said:
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?
Click to expand...

Spending more money does not equate to giving up rights, it gives money for intelligence. It allows more feet on the street and may well have prevented this bombing. If proper security had been at the finish line watching the crowd instead of the race this may well have been avoided.
 
BMCM said:
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
Click to expand...

If you can find a credible link showing that congress specifically determined the cut to domestic security be cut in half feel free to share it, until then this is at obama's door.I know he never accepts responsibility for anything that happens on his watch but there should be a clear paper trail here but don't expect 60 minutes to follow it.:lol: This will be hushed up just like the abortion murders.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Spending more money does not equate to giving up rights, it gives money for intelligence. It allows more feet on the street and may well have prevented this bombing. If proper security had been at the finish line watching the crowd instead of the race this may well have been avoided.
Click to expand...

And where does this intelligence come from, how is it going to be obtained? Do they stop and search everyone that carries a back pack or hand bag? How about searching every woman's purse or every briefcase they see. How are you going to have the Gov. protect you without giving up some of your freedoms?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you can find a credible link showing that congress specifically determined the cut to domestic security be cut in half feel free to share it, until then this is at obama's door.I know he never accepts responsibility for anything that happens on his watch but there should be a clear paper trail here but don't expect 60 minutes to follow it.:lol: This will be hushed up just like the abortion murders.
Click to expand...

I didn't lay blame on anyone, just pointed out more then one side. Do you have a link showing that Obama was the one that reduced the money? The rest of your post has nothing to do with this thread. You say you're an Independent but your post says differently.
 
BMCM said:
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
Click to expand...

And if Congress allows Obama to make the decision instead of specifying how the money should be allocated, then they bear the blame.

No matter how you slice it, the budget is Congress' responsibility.
 
BMCM said:
I didn't lay blame on anyone, just pointed out more then one side. Do you have a link showing that Obama was the one that reduced the money? The rest of your post has nothing to do with this thread. You say you're an Independent but your post says differently.
Click to expand...

There is only three choices here, obama cut the budget, obama who ostensibly meets with his dept of Homeland security on a regular basis was unaware the budget had been cut or he knew someone cut the budget and shrugged his shoulders. none of these options are good for obama.
 
sangha said:
And if Congress allows Obama to make the decision instead of specifying how the money should be allocated, then they bear the blame.

No matter how you slice it, the budget is Congress' responsibility.
Click to expand...

Where are these "congress is responsible" people when the left starts blathering on about Clintons so called surplus?
 
Truckstop said:
Where are these "congress is responsible" people when the left starts blathering on about Clintons so called surplus?
Click to expand...

The same place the "Obama is responsible" people go when we point out that Obama has reduced the deficit
 
sawyerloggingon said:
There is only three choices here, obama cut the budget, obama who ostensibly meets with his dept of Homeland security on a regular basis was unaware the budget had been cut or he knew someone cut the budget and shrugged his shoulders. none of these options are good for obama.
Click to expand...

If you too single visioned to see past your hatred of obama and realize that no president has the kind of power that people seem to think they do. Bottom line, Congress controls the spending and levies taxes, it's in the Constitution. Congress has authority over Homeland security, They created that monster.
 
Truckstop said:
Where are these "congress is responsible" people when the left starts blathering on about Clintons so called surplus?
Click to expand...

I don't know, perhaps you need to ask them
 
BMCM said:
If you too single visioned to see past your hatred of obama and realize that no president has the kind of power that people seem to think they do. Bottom line, Congress controls the spending and levies taxes, it's in the Constitution. Congress has authority over Homeland security, They created that monster.
Click to expand...

I gave you the only three options there are and none of them made obama look very good. You did not address that because your obama love won't let you.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I gave you the only three options there are and none of them made obama look very good. You did not address that because your obama love won't let you.
Click to expand...

Being a person that doesn't live his life in an alphabet world I'm able to see that both the Dems and Reps are equally to blame for the condition of this Country. I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I posed to you. Let me refresh your memory.

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?
 
BMCM said:
Being a person that doesn't live his life in an alphabet world I'm able to see that both the Dems and Reps are equally to blame for the condition of this Country. I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I posed to you. Let me refresh your memory.

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?
Click to expand...

Start your own thread. This thread ask if obama should restore the money he cut for IED domestic terrorism, it is you who won't answer and wants to derail the thread. I voted, I voted yes.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Start your own thread. This thread ask if obama should restore the money he cut for IED domestic terrorism, it is you who won't answer and wants to derail the thread. I voted, I voted yes.
Click to expand...

I thought i had answered your questions, perhaps i missed one. By all means repost it and I'll answer it to the best of my ability.

The questions I asked do in fact pertain to this thread. You said he should restore the money that was cut from IED domestic terrorism. Would you be satisfied if the 11 mill was restored or do you think it should be increased. If so then how much should it be increased by. How much of your freedom are you willing to give up for the safety you're looking for? Would you be willing to have your person searched when you went into a public place, how about your wife's purse or your kids backpack?
 
sangha said:
The same place the "Obama is responsible" people go when we point out that Obama has reduced the deficit
Click to expand...

Wait, if congress is responsible for the budget, how does Obama reduce the deficit? So the left would be wholly responsible for the last two "Bush" budgets also right? Since "No matter how you slice it, the budget is Congress' responsibility."

NM sorry for derailng.
 
Truckstop said:
Wait, if congress is responsible for the budget, how does Obama reduce the deficit? So the left would be wholly responsible for the last two "Bush" budgets also right? Since "No matter how you slice it, the budget is Congress' responsibility."

NM sorry for derailng.
Click to expand...

Since 9/11, we all realize that rightwingers have problems connecting the dots
 
BMCM said:
I thought i had answered your questions, perhaps i missed one. By all means repost it and I'll answer it to the best of my ability.

The questions I asked do in fact pertain to this thread. You said he should restore the money that was cut from IED domestic terrorism. Would you be satisfied if the 11 mill was restored or do you think it should be increased. If so then how much should it be increased by. How much of your freedom are you willing to give up for the safety you're looking for? Would you be willing to have your person searched when you went into a public place, how about your wife's purse or your kids backpack?
Click to expand...

If you said the money should be restored or not I missed it.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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
Click to expand...
Depends...

In today's world, something needs to be done to try and head off this stuff, the only question is "how much?". Are you suggesting that $20 mil (extra $9 mil) would have thwarted this bombing? If so, that's a pretty questionable suggestion. It is entirely possible that $11 mil is fine and this particular incident would have happened anyway. No one can say definitively one way or another.
 
radcen said:
Depends...

In today's world, something needs to be done to try and head off this stuff, the only question is "how much?". Are you suggesting that $20 mil (extra $9 mil) would have thwarted this bombing? If so, that's a pretty questionable suggestion. It is entirely possible that $11 mil is fine and this particular incident would have happened anyway. No one can say definitively one way or another.
Click to expand...

My idea would be to have well trained squads that would be deployed to events like the Boston Marathon. They would decide the hot spots for a bombing like this and spread out to watch the crowd. If someone had been at the finish line in Boston there is a good chance those two guys walking briskly through the crowd carrying matching and obviously heavy black backpacks would have been noticed and watched. The second they set the packs down and walked away the alarm could have been sounded and greatly reduced if not eliminated the carnage.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
My idea would be to have well trained squads that would be deployed to events like the Boston Marathon. They would decide the hot spots for a bombing like this and spread out to watch the crowd. If someone had been at the finish line in Boston there is a good chance those two guys walking briskly through the crowd carrying matching and obviously heavy black backpacks would have been noticed and watched. The second they set the packs down and walked away the alarm could have been sounded and greatly reduced if not eliminated the carnage.
Click to expand...
What a reduculous notion. Are you even somewhat aware of how many large events take place in America every day? How many you gonna' cover? How about the city-wide HS Football Trophy game? That's got thousands of people every year and they're all in one spot. Virtually every sporting event, every mall and Wal-mart the day after Thanksgiving, here thousands attend the Plaza Lighting, an outdoor event with tens of thousands in attendance. Who's going to cover all that and who's going to pay for it? Just how far is "far "enough"?


Let's ban all them sem-i-au-toes! They's been kill'in lots o' folks with them thar things!
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
If you said the money should be restored or not I missed it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the money should have been restored because I don't think it would have prevented the Boston bombing or any other bombing. IMO the only way to do that would be to put every single person in this country under 24X7 surveillance.

Why have you been dodging my questions?
You said he should restore the money that was cut from IED domestic terrorism. Would you be satisfied if the 11 mill was restored or do you think it should be increased. If so then how much should it be increased by. How much of your freedom are you willing to give up for the safety you're looking for? Would you be willing to have your person searched when you went into a public place, how about your wife's purse or your kids backpack?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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
Click to expand...

In the Boston incident, I don't think this had a role at all in it. Funding could be at zero, 10 million, 20 million or 200 million and these two nuts would have still pulled it off.
 
BMCM said:
I didn't say the money should have been restored because I don't think it would have prevented the Boston bombing or any other bombing. IMO the only way to do that would be to put every single person in this country under 24X7 surveillance.

Why have you been dodging my questions?
You said he should restore the money that was cut from IED domestic terrorism. Would you be satisfied if the 11 mill was restored or do you think it should be increased. If so then how much should it be increased by. How much of your freedom are you willing to give up for the safety you're looking for? Would you be willing to have your person searched when you went into a public place, how about your wife's purse or your kids backpack?
Click to expand...

See post 46
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom