posted on February 11, 2001 04:36:50 PM new
But Mike, little in life is all or nothing. I thought you intended with the words that you chose to convey your experience that it was of tremendous consequence. Is that not the case?
typo
[ edited by Antiquary on Feb 11, 2001 04:45 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2001 04:48:16 PM new
krs - That post you quote me making was news earlier, and I posted it to show others what Clinton was saying he was planning on doing to defray the extravigant office expense. As with a lot of news events, new things are revealed, sometimes minute by minute.
"Clinton has offered" and this "....was not described to potential donors ....", I believe were statements that brought into question whether or not Clinton could do what he was offering.
Then on the news today, a newsperson was saying there are rules that they believed wouldn't allow that to occur...for the reasons I stated.
posted on February 11, 2001 05:00:11 PM new
Well, I'm stumped too Helen. Apparently Mike didn't really mean what he said, but those who chose to wear leisure suits would undoubtedly understand.
posted on February 11, 2001 05:18:34 PM new
Come to think of it, Dan, if you can recall back to the first picture thread that we had here, I seem to remember a picure posted of a grouping of family members in front of a fireplace all of whom were dressed in leisure suits. I could be wrong about All, but the two on the right sure were.
posted on February 11, 2001 05:22:20 PM new
You know I missed that thread, the first one, but through inference I can envision the picture. That would explain a lot.
posted on February 11, 2001 10:16:01 PM new
Sorry Antiquary, I left to watch a couple of movies.
The problem you have introduced, is you have greatly narrowed my comments to mean:
-That "law enforcement" only means -state, county, and municipal levels.
-That "law enforcement" only means -police or sheriff agencies.
-That "law enforcement" only means - men and women who carry badges and guns.
-That misuse and abuse of funding only means -criminal conduct e.g., fraud.
-That the misuse and abuse of taxpayers' money must be pervasive and criminal to be a concern..
-That my argument is only of federal funding and grants.
Here is a wider example of (some) of the agencies and organizations dipping their hands in your pocket through the DOJ and Federal budgeting.
Just to name a few federal agencies:
FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, DEA, Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Customs Service. BATF, IRS, Capitol Police, Federal Police, Secret Service, US Marshal Service, FBP, National Park Service. U.S. Border Patrol, INS, Forensic, Courts, WPA, etc.
Nationwide non-federal dippers:
-Police and sheriff departments in all states.
-Departments of corrections in all states.
-Forensic services in all states.
-Courts in all states.
-Nonprofit (civilian) agencies with law enforcement missions in all states.
Antiquary, where did the LEAA, OLEA, and OJARS programs go? Although the programs did bring about some good progress, what were some of the problems that contributed to the termination or demise of these programs?
posted on February 11, 2001 11:36:16 PM new
Federal Funding for state level police departments simply doesn't exist. Clinton's idea for federal funding for police was to distribute money to the states in order to hire more officers. However, in the first year, the states would receive 100% federal funding to cover the new officer's pay. The second year the state would only receive 50% from federal funds for that officer's pay. The third year, the state would not receive any federal funding for the officers that had been hired.
The states did not fall for this trick because they knew that once the federal funding was gone after two years, they would not be able to continue to employ that officer. No state in this union accepted the deal. The money was returned to the "General Fund" and the public was never notified of the failure. Bush simply wants to take the money that Clinton tried to give the states and utilize it. Otherwise, it will sit there doing nothing. He is not decreasing the funding for the police because it hasn't been used at all.
So while Clinton made a big deal about hiring more officers to decrease crime, he neglected to mention these "minor" details. The states would have already hired more officers if their budget had allowed for it.
Clinton provided this country with the largest cut in military spending EVER. Currently, our military is undermanned, overworked, and has poor moral. This is a result of Clinton's past 8 years in office.
As the wife of a police officer and ex-military law enforcement officer, my husband and I follow these topics very closely... as it directly effects our lives. While it's obvious that I am a Republican (and from Texas), I would have liked nothing more than to see Clinton's plan work to provide my husband with more officer backup, better equipment, and less crime to deal with. It just didn't work.
I'd also like to address the issue of the useless toys that was brought up in an earlier post. I can't think of one piece of equipment that is unnecessary or could be considered useless. Let's hear some specifics here.
[ edited by copzsweetheart on Feb 11, 2001 11:50 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2001 11:54:33 PM new
"Clinton provided this country with the largest cut in military spending EVER."
I've heard it suggested that this might have something to do with the demise of the Soviet Union as a world power, rather than any pernicious indifference to national security. Only a theory.
-gaffan-
(quote corrected)
[ edited by gaffan on Feb 12, 2001 12:03 AM ]
posted on February 12, 2001 01:11:43 AM new
The theory that the cuts may have been done due to the demise of the Soviet Union as a world power certainly makes sense to me. However, I suspect that while the funding was decreased... the workload was not. I would hope that any president, regardless of political party, wouldn't maliciously threaten our national security. I don't believe that was Clinton's intention and I wouldn't imply it was. I was simply stating a fact by comparison to past reductions in military funding. It just so happens Clinton was in office during the downfall of the Soviet Union.
While I feel it would be erroneous to further decrease military funding, I'm also a firm believer that a good defense is a good offense. Regardless of the Soviet Union's current status. Republican or not, Bush will not receive my support for additional military funding reduction.
[ edited by copzsweetheart on Feb 12, 2001 01:15 AM ]
posted on February 12, 2001 01:15:37 AM new
Well gosh, copzsweetheart, I hate to act as a go between in what appears to be a family dispute, but to your:
"I'd also like to address the issue of the useless toys that was brought up in an earlier post. I can't think of one piece of equipment that is unnecessary or could be considered useless. Let's hear some specifics here".
I think that you might ask sgtmike, who posted:
"I will not begin talking about the stockpile of unnecessary toys many departments have acquired with federal funds".
And to your:
"Federal Funding for state level police departments simply doesn't exist"
again, ask sgtmike, who posted:
"I tired of being given the assignment of getting (federally funded) programs off the ground"
and:
"Often, programs are created and federal funds requested to use for other reasons or just to end up with the toys that are often part of the grant".
and:
"There is not enough time or space to talk about all the hundreds of other areas, private sector and law enforcement, where taxpayers' money is misused. The abuse and waste has to be in the billions".
sadly, you seem to be undermisinformed about:
"The states did not fall for this trick because they knew that once the federal funding was gone after two years, they would not be able to continue to employ that officer. No state in this union accepted the deal".
the point wasn't states, but municipalities, and at least one certainly enjoyed benefit, contrary to your claim, as cited in:
We are all certainly delighted to have you come and register here yesterday to make these points, copzsweetheart, but perhaps in the future you and mike could get together so that all of your ducks are in a row?
posted on February 12, 2001 01:46:35 AM new
I was unaware that this particular community took part in Clinton's federal funding. It was, to my knowledge, that none had. I apologize for the error. I can't imagine how I wasn't aware that this community accepted the funding, considering they have a whole 18 officers on patrol. If you will read the article more closely, you will see that my other information was correct. The article states they will receive x amount of dollars over the next 3 years. Afterwards, do you honestly believe this community will be able to keep those officers in their employ? I doubt it. Also, how is it that this small town can pay their officers $75,000 a year when most don't even make half that. Maybe if they paid less, they would have more working the beats.
As for sgtmike, I don't know where he gets his information.
"I tired of being given the assignment of getting (federally funded) programs off the ground"
How do I, or you, know he does this??
"There is not enough time or space to talk about all the hundreds of other areas, private sector and law enforcement, where taxpayers' money is misused. The abuse and waste has to be in the billions"
I agree with this statement. My question was what useless toys? (For example, handguns, handcuffs, leg restraints, cars, sirens, lights, etc. I don't recall my husband being issued anything useless.) I didn't say corruption didn't occur.
I fail to see how the date of my registration gives me any less of an opportunity to state my opinions. I've obviously been misled into thinking I had just as much right to post as anyone.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:29:05 AM new
The Berlin Wall came down at the end of 1989, symbolizing the end of the Cold War. However, the end of the Cold War was not the downfall of the Soviet Union as a leading world power, which began slowly around August of 1991. They were no longer considered a threat to U.S. national security until 1995. I'm pretty sure "Ronnie" wasn't in office at that time.
posted on February 12, 2001 02:39:50 AM newCopzsweetheart:
I would have enjoyed debating the federal funding and grant issue with you, including the federal justice budget, but this statement has disqualified you as a worthy opponent.
"Federal Funding for state level police departments simply doesn't exist."
It appears you might be mistakenly reducing the "big picture" to only the program (farce)Clinton created to put more cops on the street.
Federal funding/grants for police departments for training, increased education, programs, equipment, etc., began in the 60's under the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and continues today under changing titles and bills. Most funding is now through DOJ/OJP.
Also, I said ….."unnecessary police toys," not "useless toys." However, some useless toys have also been acquired and paid for by the taxpayers.
posted on February 12, 2001 06:19:10 AM new
sgtmike:
I did not read your prior posts until after krs brought up the fact that you and I should "get our ducks in a row". I saw the thread, I read a few posts, and I posted my opinion on the subject. Nevertheless, after reading your statements, I've come to the conclusion that you have more knowledge on this subject than I do.
I was not looking at the "big picture" when I posted my opinion because, in my mind, the subject was Bush vs. Clinton in regards to federal funding for police. Therefore, Clinton's so-called crime package came to mind first. I cannot say which programs or training in my area come from federal funding, because I honestly don't know. It was my understanding that our city, county, and state taxes paid for training, equipment, and continued education. If this is not the case, I believe the taxpayers in Texas may be owed an explanation. It's possible that issue might support your fraud, waste, and abuse standpoint.
It seems clear to me that I simply don't have access to the information that you do, and therefore, agree with your statement that I'm not a worthy opponent to debate this issue. I've certainly learned alot from this board and never have a problem with learning something new.
krs:
It seems that you and I are on opposite sides of the coin. Politics are one of the "forbidden" subjects that usually end with many people upset and without a resolution. Democrat or Republican, the bottom line is we are both concerned about the crime levels in our country. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I applaud you for your effort to express your concern over the welfare of our country, as so many seem to not care at all. So, I'm waving the white flag here and saying let's just agree to disagree. Truce?
posted on February 12, 2001 07:05:03 AM new
Truce copzsweetheart?
As you consort with the enemy you apply for truce with me?
You know, the snide reference to the small allocations used by the county I referenced (for example only) have brought me to see the extent of your error in claiming that no agency receives federal funding (words to that effect). As you can see in:
there are many more agencies that use such funding, and even more that apply for and are found unqualified to receive it.
Make no mistake, despite sgtmike's previous assertion that the program has ended, it is very much alive, even though pestered each year by republican moves to reduce the funding or to deny the funding altogether as you can see indicated in the report at:
posted on February 12, 2001 08:38:47 AM new
Actually, krs, I believe the wall started to come down during the administration of Bush the Elder. "In response to" rather than "during" would have been a better choice of phrase on my part, of course. I assure you I was not overmisinformed.
-gaffan-
posted on February 12, 2001 10:02:02 AM new
You're such a stickler for clarity in diction and syntax, Gaffan! But surely you don't mean to imply by "I assure you I was not overmisinformed" that one can ever be sufficiently misinformed; just consider how assiduously Mike works toward that goal and yet I doubt that he is satisfied. Even now, I would bet, he's tirelessly searching for or concocting more evidence.
Well, I'm just making my rounds patrolling for more waste. Other duties are calling.
posted on February 12, 2001 10:26:37 AM new
Please, Antiquary. I certainly did not intend to imply that I was not overmisinformend except with respect to the topic at hand, and indeed made no claims vis being overmisinformed in general. Although I must admit that I am considering trying to become so; it seems to work for many people, and I strongly suspect it's easier than thinking.
-gaffan-
posted on February 12, 2001 10:54:39 AM new
Gaffan, I'm delighted to hear of your considered conversion. We've all got to pitch in and do our part to ensure the success of the new Bush administration.
