[linskyjack]

The Republicans hold their convention in NYC, praise the NYC Fireman and gain their support (one of the few fire departments in the USA to support Bush) then ten days later vote down a bill that would give New York and otherstates that are major terrorist targets a greater proportion of funds for homeland security. Idaho (certainly not a primary target) gets something like $38 bucks a citizen whereas New York gets something like $3.28. The ultimate irony is that that the NYFD will be hurt by this, the same fire department that supports Bush.! I guess its about bringing the pork home to your state, not about what is good for the United States. Bush and his Frist should be ashamed of themselves.

[LANMaster]

Where are you getting your figures?

[alex_holker]

Hang on. You're saying that even though New York *gains* money (admittedly, only a small amount), this bill hurts the NYFD? How do you come to that conclusion? They do not benefit as much as Idaho, but where do you come up with that?

Alex

[linskyjack]

This is a bill that was voted on yesterday---I read the article in the NYTimes. The NYFD is part of the first response team in any major act of terrorsim. Dont shoot the messenger--read the article--its in todays Daily News or NY Post--hardly left wing rags.

Here is a link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-199477c.html

[LANMaster]

From the original post (so you don't edit it again). <-- edit, note the winky.

The Republicans hold their convention in NYC, praise the NYC Fireman and gain their support (one of the few fire departments in the USA to support Bush) then ten days later vote down a bill that would give New York and otherstates that are major terrorist targets a greater proportion of funds for homeland security. Idaho (certainly not a primary target) gets something like $38 bucks a citizen whereas New York gets something like $3.28. The ultimate irony is that that the NYFD will be hurt by this, the same fire department that supports Bush.! I guess its about bringing the pork home to your state, not about what is good for the United States. Bush and his Frist should be ashamed of themselves.

from your link;

Man for man and woman for woman, Wyoming (population 493,782) does better - $38.31 per person, compared with the paltry $5.47 in counterterror funds spent on each New Yorker, The News found.

1. It seems your figures in the first post don't jive with the figures in this link? Why's that?

2. Man for man and woman for woman. Ain't that a cliche' these days. (read subliminal Liberal message in the article)

3. Ahh the old "per capita" argument. Wyoming has a much lower population than New York. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the entire State of Wyoming has fewer people than New York City alone. So the comparisson is rediculous to begin with. Obviously New York gets FAR MORE in REAL DOLLARS than Idaho, but the article fails to point that out. Based on your argument, Wyoming should be screaming that New York gets 10's of times more funding PER SQUARE MILE than Wyoming. But, of course, that's Bush's fault.

I cannot believe that you actually started a thread to bash Republicans with such WEAK EVIDENCE to back up your claims. It does not surprise me that this tact was used by Sen. Clinton.



NEXT!

[linskyjack]

1.I said "something like" I didn't have the article in front of me but used a small state and New York as an example. If my numbers aren't accurate please post accurate ones that support your point!

2. The New York Daily News is owned by Ruppert Murdoch. He is to the right of Attila the Hun.


3. Oh yes, we make funding decisions based on square mileage--in that case Alaska would get about three times as much funding for education then New York. That makes no sense. If you can honestly sit there and say that this isn't about Bush firming up his electroal college support, then I would have to say you are not being objective. I rest my case!

NEXT!

By the way, have you read any of the articles on pork barrel spending by republican congressmen and senators? This is the party of fiscal responsibility?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

1.I said "something like" I didn't have the article in front of me but used a small state and New York as an example. If my numbers aren't accurate please post accurate ones that support your point!

Okay. Looks like Idaho and Wyoming were used. That might explain the discrepancy. I don't have the time or the inclination to search out those numbers.

2. The New York Daily News is owned by Ruppert Murdoch. He is to the right of Attila the Hun.

Irrelivant
Viacom owns CBS, yet look at the "rather" bias reporting coming from there.
Disney owns ABC, yet Peter Jennings is left of Marx himself!
GE owns NBC, don't they?

3. Oh yes, we make funding decisions based on square mileage--in that case Alaska would get about three times as much funding for education then New York. That makes no sense. If you can honestly sit there and say that this isn't about Bush firming up his electroal college support, then I would have to say you are not being objective. I rest my case!

NEXT!

There are many criteria for calculating need and worthiness for homeland security revenues.

Answer me this.

How much does New York State get IN TOTAL DOLLARS for Homeland Security?
How much does Wyoming get IN TOTAL DOALLARS for Homeland Security?

If you are going to quote per capita figures, I challenge YOU to be objective and post the whole truth.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

By the way, have you read any of the articles on pork barrel spending by republican congressmen and senators? This is the party of fiscal responsibility?

I think we both need to be careful how we edit. Especially since we're both right on top of this thread.

Anyway, try to stay on topic, okay?

[LANMaster]

..... back in a couple hours.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Okay. Looks like Idaho and Wyoming were used. That might explain the discrepancy. I don't have the time or the inclination to search out those numbers.

Irrelivant
Viacom owns CBS, yet look at the "rather" bias reporting coming from there.
Disney owns ABC, yet Peter Jennings is left of Marx himself!
GE owns NBC, don't they?


There are many criteria for calculating need and worthiness for homeland security revenues.

Answer me this.

How much does New York State get IN TOTAL DOLLARS for Homeland Security?
How much does Wyoming get IN TOTAL DOALLARS for Homeland Security?

If you are going to quote per capita figures, I challenge YOU to be objective and post the whole truth.

LAN
Doen't this country have a history of providing money to specific areas based on percieved need. Only Fla is getting hurricane relief -not Wyoming, agri subsidies are concentrated as are Army Engineers -NY doesn't get more Levees cause we have more population.
The arguement is that there is more need along the coasts and in large cities which are most at risk. The money, like that spent for Levees is to try and protect certain parts of the poopulation most at risk. Every stae has suffered from flash flooding and loss from them- but they all do not get Levee money. It goes to the places with the greatest probability of harm.
There is a much greater risk of terrist attacks in NYC then in in Casper. Instead homeland security has been turned into a pure pork product.

[LANMaster]

Brilliant argument, Paul.
I have to address it later.

[linskyjack]

Total amount is irrelevent----New York has gone without many things that the Administration had guaranteed. For instance, New York City Police are now involved in a war with the Republican mayor on wage increases. The city just doesn't have the money to pay the cops because of the increased cost to the city, (post 9/11) of providing security (huge overtime costs etc). Beyond that, to protect the system of aqueducts that provides water to over 11,000,000 people in the City of New York and neighboring communities is costing the state and city a ton. I could go on and on with examples of costs that the city faces post-9/11 that a small state, with a limited population like Wyoming and Idaho does not. By the way, I am unsure as to what the total amount of funding was to both New York and the states you mentioned---I will look into it.

Last but not least---I brought up pork barrel politics because it plays a role in this discussion. Republicans rightfully complain about big spending democrats who waste the tax payers money. A careful analysis of the spending habits of the republicans yields the surprising fact that they too waste our money at a prodigious rate---that's where the hypocracy comes in---

Maybe the answer is that both parties are fiscally irresponsible.

[bassetman]

More hypocracy!

American Legion Has Agreed: Bush Has Not Been Good For Vets Says Kerry-Edwards Campaign

8/31/2004 12:37:00 PM


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

To: National Desk and Political Reporter

Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, 202-464-2800 both of Kerry-Edwards 2004, Web: http://www.johnkerry.com

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Kerry-Edwards Campaign:

"George Bush is no friend to veterans. He has reduced services to veterans, closed VA hospitals and even threatened to veto bills that included TRICARE benefits for Reservists. The men and women who proudly wore the uniform deserve better that four more years of secret plans to cut the VA budget and no plan to take care of our men and women when they return to the U.S." -- Former Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Hershel Gober said.

-- Bush has Failed to Keep Promises to America's Vet

-- Cheney Voted Against Vets Funding Nearly Every Year in Congress

-- John Kerry: Renewing America's Promise to Its Veterans

2001: American Legion National Commander Ray G. Smith - Bush FY2002 VA Budget "Not Good Enough." After the release of Bush's FY2002 budget blueprint, the National Commander of the American Legion criticized Bush for not doing enough to solve the problems facing America's veterans. "The administration's Fiscal Year 2002 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs is not good enough... Frankly, this budget is insufficient to fulfill the campaign promises George W. Bush made Sept. 6 at The American Legion 82nd National Convention in Milwaukee." (American Legion Press Release, 2/28/01)

American Legion Criticized Bush's Latest Budget for Veterans Affairs. In a February 2, 2004 press release on the new Bush budget, the American Legion said it was "discouraged by its allocation to the Department of Veterans Affairs." The Legion noted that it would increase costs on veterans' health care. (American Legion Press Release, 2/2/04; legion.org)

Bush's Policies Angering Veterans Once Again. "It's just going to be the same thing all over again." VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward Banas called the funding package a "disgrace," a "sham," "inexcusable," and "deplorable." In a release entitled, "Another Year, Another Inadequate Budget Request for Veterans' Health Care," PVA called Bush's budget "grossly inadequate." The Disabled American Veterans said "the Bush Administration has broken faith with the nation's sick and disabled veterans" with its budget proposal. And AMVETS National Commander John Sisler said of Bush's proposal: "To say we are extremely disappointed with it is an understatement." (DAV Release, 2/4/04; AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; PVA Release, 2/3/04; CQ, 2/2/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04, emphasis added)

Nothing Complicated About Bush's Failure to Keep Campaign Promises to America's Veterans

We've got veterans all around America who are wondering what went wrong with the Veterans Administration. The lines are too long. The bureaucracy is too confusing. For eight years we've needed reform at the VA, but we "ain't seen nothing yet."- George W. Bush remarks at campaign rally, Dearborn, MI, 11/4/00

Bush Failed to Fully Fund Veterans Health Care: Bush's 2005 budget falls more than $2.6 billion short of the amount needed to fully fund quality veterans' health care, according to The Independent Budget, an annual collective assessment by four veterans' service organizations of the funding levels and policy changes needed at VA. (AMVETS Release, 2/3/04; VFW Release, 2/2/04)

Bush Administration Calls for Total Closure of Three Veterans Hospitals, Partial Closure of Eight Others. In May 2004, the Administration decided to push for the closure of hospitals in Brecksville, OH; Gulfport, MS; and, Highland Drive, PA. Eight VA hospitals will be partially closed. In most cases, inpatient care will move to larger hospitals, leaving behind an outpatient clinic or long-term-care beds. The Administration is planning partial closures in Knoxville, IA; Canandaigua, NY; Livermore, CA; Montrose, NY; Kerrville, TX; Saginaw, MI; Ft. Wayne, IN; and Butler, PA. In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed the closure of seven hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. (USA Today, 5/7/04; Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03, 12/16/03)

Spending on Prescription Drugs Has More than Doubled Over Five Years. The amount spent on prescription drugs has more than doubled over the past five years, from $87 billion in 1998 to $184 billion in 2003. Americans are spending more on prescription drugs today than ever before. (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Projections, February, 2004)

Bush Cut Waiting List By Eliminating Veterans. The Bush Administration boasts of cutting waitlists for VA health care, but they have done so by excluding nearly 500,000 veterans (Priority 7 and 8) from enrolling in VA health care. (Federal Register, Part 4 - Department of Veterans Affairs, CFR Part 17, 1/17/03)

Bush Tried to Impose New Costs on Middle-Income Vets. Bush's 2005 budget will institute a new annual $250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for middle- income veterans. In 2003, The Bush Administration publicly opposed Senate efforts to block increases in health care costs for veterans, including a new $250 annual enrollment fee for VA medical care, a proposed increase in pharmaceutical co-pays, and the Senate's addition of $1.3 billion in emergency funding for medical benefits. And in December 2001, Bush more than tripled the prescription co-payments for nonservice-connected veterans from $2 to $7. (CQ, 2/2/04; Statement of Administrative Policy, 11/12/03; The Times Leader, 10/9/03)

Bush Refused to Help Out Veterans with Rising Health Care Costs. The Bush Administration publicly opposed Senate efforts to block increases in health care costs for veterans, including a new $250 annual enrollment fee for VA medical care, a proposed increase in pharmaceutical co-pays, and the Senate's addition of $1.3 billion in emergency funding for medical benefits. The letter is dated Nov. 12, less than 24 hours after Bush laid a wreath in Arlington. (Statement of Administrative Policy, 11/12/03)

Bush Opposed Fixing The Disabled Veterans Tax. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommended that Bush veto the defense appropriations bill if it contained a fix to the concurrent receipt problem that penalizes military retirees who also receive disability assistance. The concurrent receipt ban stops a veteran who receives disability compensation from also receiving military retirement pay, effectively punishing disabled military retirees. Rumsfeld wrote that if the bill, "authorizes concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans' disability compensation benefits, or expands TRICARE, then I would join other senior advisors to the President in recommending that he veto the bill." (Rumsfeld Letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter, 7/8/03)

Future Vets Cuts Planned: Recently a leaked OMB memo showed that the Bush Administration plans to cut veterans funding after the election. The secret memo showed that the VA should expect $900 million in cuts in FY2006.

WILL BUSH TALK ABOUT CHENEY'S RECORD OF VOTING AGAINST VETS?

As a member of Congress, Dick Cheney was consistently in the minority in voting to cut funding for the Veterans Administration (it is now called the Department of Veterans Affairs), which provides, among other benefits, pensions and health care for United States veterans. Cheney also voted against bills that included benefits and programs specifically designed to assist veterans.

1980: Cheney Was One of Only 67 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1980, Cheney was one of only 67 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $20.792 billion, with $6.044 billion accounting for medical care and prosthetic research. The bill passed 313 to 67. (H.R. 7631, 1980 CQ Almanac, p. 119-H, number 395)

1981: Cheney Was One of Only 54 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1981, Cheney was one of only 54 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $22.9 billion, with $6.96 billion accounting for medical care including funds to treat servicemen exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam and prosthetic research. The bill passed 362 to 54. Cheney voted against the House conference report; passed 209 to 197. (H.R. 4034, 1981 CQ Almanac, p. 53-H, number 138; p. 67-H, number 191)

1982: Cheney Was One of Only 38 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1982, Cheney was one of only 38 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $24.1 billion, with compensation and pensions for disabled veterans accounting for $13.4 billion, $7.5 billion accounting for medical care and prosthetic research, $427 million for major construction, and $686 million for other expenses. The bill passed 343 to 38. (H.R. 6956, 1982 CQ Almanac, p. 95-H, number 314; p. 7-F, P.L. 97-272)

1983: Cheney Repeatedly Opposed Veterans Administration Funding. In 1983, Cheney voted against bringing a bill to the House floor and paired against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $24.8 billion, $8.07 billion for medical care and prosthetic research with $13.8 billion accounting for compensation and pensions, $350.9 million for major VA construction projects and $8.07 billion for medical care and prosthetic research. Bringing the bill to the floor passed 274 to 99. Cheney voted against the House conference report; passed 314 to 99. (H.R. 3133, 1983 CQ Almanac, p. 44-H, number 137; p. 65-H, number 215)

1984: Cheney Was One of Only 73 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1985, Cheney was one of only 73 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $26.5 billion. The bill passed 340 to 73. Cheney did not vote on the House conference report, but was paired against it. The House conference report passed 268 to 153. (H.R. 3038, 1985 CQ Almanac, p. 77-H, number 236; p. 115-H, number 368)

1986: Cheney Was One of Only 46 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1986, Cheney was one of only 46 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $26.115 billion, with $14.4 billion accounting for compensation and pensions, $9.5 billion for medical care and prosthetic research, $377 million for major construction projects and $77 million for minor projects. The bill passed 295 to 46. (H.R. 5313, 1986 CQ Almanac, p. 101-H, number 353)

1987: Cheney Was One of Only 68 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1987, Cheney was one of only 68 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $27.3 billion. The bill passed 295 to 68. (H.R. 2783, 1987 CQ Almanac, p. 101-H, number 328)

1988: Cheney Was One of Only 40 Members to Vote Against Veterans Administration Funding. In 1988, Cheney was one of only 40 House members to vote against House passage of a bill that provided funding for the Veterans Administration. The bill provided an annual budget of $28.177 billion. The bill passed 377 to 40. Cheney was one of only 30 House members to vote against the House conference report; passed 377 to 30. (H.R. 4800, 1988 CQ Almanac, p. 64-H, number 198; p. 86-H, number 268)

John Kerry: Renewing America's Promise to Its Veterans

"There is no greater sacrifice than putting your life on the line in the name of freedom and in defense of this nation. We need to keep faith with those who have served our country, and that includes ensuring the care and benefits they need and deserve. I have met thousands of veterans as I travel across this country who fought with pride and honor, but still don't have the quality health care they need. I will return to Washington to fight for them." -- John Kerry, 6/21/04

John Kerry Will Ensure Access to Health Care for All Veterans. John Kerry will end the game of playing politics with funding for veterans health care. As president, Kerry will push for mandatory funding for veterans health care so that America never pits veterans in one state against veterans in another again.

Kerry Will Streamline the Veterans' Health Care System. Too many veterans wait in line to receive health care from the Veterans' health care system. John Kerry will work to streamline this process so that veterans hear in a timely manner about their status and their benefits. And he'll use America's technological know-how to cut administrative costs by eliminating the billions of dollars lost through waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system.

Kerry Will End the Disabled Veterans Tax. John Kerry will fight to end the "disabled veterans tax," under which military retirees who receive both veterans' pensions and disability compensation must surrender a dollar from their military retirement pay for every dollar they get for disability compensation. The Bush Administration has fought to keep this unfair tax in place.

John Kerry Will Ensure That All Military Reservists Have Health Care. Members of the National Guard and Reserve are fighting and dying alongside members of the active duty component. John Kerry believes that these brave Americans deserve access to the same level of healthcare as other soldiers on the battlefield. As part of his Military Family Bill of Rights, John Kerry supports legislation to provide access to TRICARE, the military's health care system, for all members of the National Guard and Reserves.

John Kerry Has a Plan to Address Rising Health Care Costs. John Kerry has a five-point plan to build a stronger America by controlling health care costs for all Americans, including providing families and businesses relief; cutting prescription drug costs; eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system; improving efficiency and quality of care; and making malpractice insurance more affordable.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

LAN
Doen't this country have a history of providing money to specific areas based on percieved need. Only Fla is getting hurricane relief -not Wyoming, agri subsidies are concentrated as are Army Engineers -NY doesn't get more Levees cause we have more population.
The arguement is that there is more need along the coasts and in large cities which are most at risk. The money, like that spent for Levees is to try and protect certain parts of the poopulation most at risk. Every stae has suffered from flash flooding and loss from them- but they all do not get Levee money. It goes to the places with the greatest probability of harm.
There is a much greater risk of terrist attacks in NYC then in in Casper. Instead homeland security has been turned into a pure pork product.

Paul and Linsky,
Your points are correct, of course.

But based on your logic, Wyoming (the lowest population state at about 500,00) wouldn't be able to buy a clean suit, let alone any means of Home security personnel and training.

It is about balance.

Fir Sen. Clinton to choose the lowest populated state for comparisson is intellectually dishonest.
Of course she'll find that kind of figure. Let her compare the figure to a state which is near the same population levels (rather than a state which has a population many, many, many times smaller)

It is exactly what any HONEST person would expect to find.

[LANMaster]

John, I don't see how your post fits into this thread.
It's nothing more than a 527 advert for the Kerry camp.