Which U.S. State has the most potential terrorist targets? [Archive]

malphigian

07-11-2006, 08:15 PM

I'll give you 49 guesses!

...

Wrong! Indiana.

Article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12assets.html?hp&ex=1152676800&en=6b0502da91a3d945&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

The DHS terror targets list includes such high profile Al Qaeda targets as "Nix's Check Cashing", a petting zoo in woodsville Alabama, and Amish Country Popcorn is rural Indiana. This list is used to set anti-terrorist funding.

You know, I thought the republicans were turning DHS funds into some iimpressive pork before, but that was nothing compared to this.

I think I speak for everyone here in NYC when I say: "Fuck you. None of you greedy bastards have ever been at risk of a terrorist attack in your corn fields. Regards, NYC"

Lizard_King

07-11-2006, 08:24 PM

chumpface

07-11-2006, 09:10 PM

LK, since when does NY "run the show culturally and politically"? Last time I checked, Hillary was in the minority party, and "Match Point" wasn't exactly doing Passion of the Christ numbers.

Crater

07-11-2006, 09:29 PM

Welcome to modern American federalized democracy. Thank you for having your part of the country run the show culturally and politically, and correspondingly subsidizing the other slab of your society with your wealth.

Those goddamn leechers. All they do is grow the food that you need to live. Especially since all anyone really needs to get by is TRL reruns.

This isn't all that surprising, sad as it may be. DHS has become a giant pork barrel project that I'm sure most lawmakers would love to pass along to their supporters.

But it'll be worth it when we protect Mt. Rushmore from renegade Kryptonians. Don't say we didn't warn you!

Lizard_King

07-11-2006, 09:32 PM

I meant the civilized portions of the Eastern Seaboard generally, not just NY. You can add in LA, maybe, but it's not as geographically or historically neat.

And I would say since roughly 1776.

The joy of the Passion, and so many other allegedly red state cultural phenomena, is the derivative nature of their origins. Their status as a safety valve for the hoi polloi. It backfires from time to time, as Mel's increasing instability reflects, but mostly it's pretty effective.

In any case, I think a lot of people confuse raw numbers for significance. The possibility that Hillary does not get as many votes as you think she should has nothing to do with the disproportionate level of power she has relative to how many people Americawide actually agree with her.

In any case, I think I speak for all persons temporarily or permanently confined to non NY pastures when I say if NY is so scary, fucking move. I think it's a great place to be, and I would consider the chump tax it periodically (along with most other exciting and allegedly exciting cities) gives those out in the sticks to put up with it a small price to pay. So their search dogs have bombproof vests. Fuck it. It's just a small piece of the big bag of crazy that is the 21st century USA.

malphigian

07-11-2006, 09:51 PM

In any case, I think I speak for all persons temporarily or permanently confined to non NY pastures when I say if NY is so scary, fucking move. I think it's a great place to be, and I would consider the chump tax it periodically (along with most other exciting and allegedly exciting cities) gives those out in the sticks to put up with it a small price to pay.

Oh come on, don't be obtuse. This has nothing to do with NYC being "scary".

It's just a great example of transparent greed made worse by the fact that these assholes claim to have the "war on terror" as their top priority, when it's really just a convenient excuse to push through their pet policies and grab some money.

I don't claim to be shocked by it, but it does make me nauseous.

Glenn

07-11-2006, 10:58 PM

Those goddamn leechers. All they do is grow the food that you need to live.
Mexicans?

Lum

07-11-2006, 11:09 PM

Destarius

07-11-2006, 11:41 PM

Frankly, Durka Durka Mohamed would probably prefer to blow up, say, the 'Giant Green Water Whore' (per Jon Stewart) in NYC than a petting zoo.

Midnight Son

07-12-2006, 03:15 AM

Orinoco

07-12-2006, 05:59 AM

I know, we can't blame the ruling party that is fucking us all over.... we must blame gays and immigrants!

You know what would be great? A gay immigrant burning a flag - that would be awesome!

Midnight Son

07-12-2006, 06:30 AM

You know what would be great? A gay immigrant burning a flag - that would be awesome!

There would be a FOX NEWS ALERT!!!! FOX NEWS ALERT!!!! FOX NEWS ALERT!!!! FOX NEWS ALERT!!!! FOX NEWS ALERT!!!! FOX NEWS ALERT!!!!FOX NEWS ALERT!!!!

TheTrunkDr

07-12-2006, 06:59 AM

Uh, I think blaming this on Republicans is a bit of a stretch. Pork knows no bounds of political affiliation. I know this may surprise you but actual conservatives generally dislike giving out federal booty.
We're not blaming conservatives, we're blaming the party that has the majority in all branches of government right now. This isn't to say that the Democrats don't have a part in it but they couldn't do this on their own. Also the Repulican party is hardly a group of financial conservatives these days.

Charles

07-12-2006, 07:42 AM

So their search dogs have bombproof vests. Fuck it. It's just a small piece of the big bag of crazy that is the 21st century USA.

Is that really all there is to it though? One could argue that no amount of funding can prevent a plane from flying in to a building, but pretending New York is less of a target than bumfuck middle of nowhere seems kind of... off. Not that any of this funding is actually doing much.

But from a pure logic perspective, major city seems like bigger target than minor city.

Flowers

07-12-2006, 07:57 AM

I know this may surprise you but actual conservatives generally dislike giving out federal booty.

And no true Scotsman...

AndrewM

07-12-2006, 07:58 AM

Uh, I think blaming this on Republicans is a bit of a stretch. Pork knows no bounds of political affiliation. I know this may surprise you but actual conservatives generally dislike giving out federal booty.

I think Republican states take in more federal revenue than they pay, and Democratic states vice versa. When it comes to their own district, all (or almost all) politicians favor big government.

I do think it shows how much of a mess DHS is. You know, just in case Katrina wasn't enough of a message.

Yeah, it sounds like they just asked each state what their terrorist sites are, and 50 different groups sat around and came up with stuff. Probably states with less chance of getting hit by terrorists have less competant people dealing with it, so we end up with the Bob Big Boy's in Nowheresville. "Hey, they get a lot of people for their half-price buffet. That should go on the list."

SlyFrog

07-12-2006, 08:06 AM

We're not blaming conservatives, we're blaming the party that has the majority in all branches of government right now. This isn't to say that the Democrats don't have a part in it but they couldn't do this on their own. Also the Repulican party is hardly a group of financial conservatives these days.

But we should blame conservatives more, because they are supposed to know better. It's part of their fundamental platform not to do this kind of shit.

Glenn

07-12-2006, 09:03 AM

It's part of their fundamental platform not to do this kind of shit.
And yet earmarking has more than tripled since Bush took office.

SlyFrog

07-12-2006, 09:05 AM

And yet earmarking has more than tripled since Bush took office.

Yes, that's the point. He (and probably more specifically, the current Republican controlled congress) is an embarassment to his purported cause.

Glenn

07-12-2006, 09:16 AM

I wasn't disputing that.

However, I will dispute this:
But we should blame conservatives more, because they are supposed to know better.
C'mon. We should blame conservatives more because they're doing far more of it. It's not like democrats are openly in favor of graft or something.

SlyFrog

07-12-2006, 10:54 AM

I wasn't disputing that.

However, I will dispute this:

C'mon. We should blame conservatives more because they're doing far more of it. It's not like democrats are openly in favor of graft or something.

Depends on your definition of "graft," both for purposes of these particular projects and government spending generally.

However, you do not need to define graft to say that a part of the conservative platform is minimized government spending in general (perhaps outside of certain areas (roads and tanks) depending on the conservative), and that Bush is an abject failure under those standards regardless of whether it is graft.

jeffd

07-12-2006, 11:18 AM

I don't know what fairyland you're from but "minimized government spending in general" hasn't been part of the conservative platform for about a quarter decade.

Depends on your definition of "graft," both for purposes of these particular projects and government spending generally.

However, you do not need to define graft to say that a part of the conservative platform is minimized government spending in general (perhaps outside of certain areas (roads and tanks) depending on the conservative), and that Bush is an abject failure under those standards regardless of whether it is graft.

Jason McMaster

07-12-2006, 11:23 AM

No one ever has to live in fear except for people in NY. You guys are so dreamy.

SlyFrog

07-12-2006, 11:25 AM

I don't know what fairyland you're from but "minimized government spending in general" hasn't been part of the conservative platform for about a quarter decade.

It has very much been a part. It has been ignored to some extent (most notably with respect to Bush generally and Reagan with respect to military spending I think).

But to suggest it is no longer part of the conservative platform seems a bit off. Just look at the 2004 Republican platform:

We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending. Furthermore, we believe that the federal government should be limited and restricted to the functions mandated by the United States Constitution. The taxation
system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs."
Many Democrats, however, believe the government has a right to claim the money earned by working Americans. They fight any attempt to return the balance of power from Washington to individual families and businesses. . . . .

Spending limits will help Congress restrain the growth of government. We support a cap on discretionary spending that will limit the growth of overall spending while ensuring that priorities such as our nation’s security will continue to be met. We applaud President Bush for submitting a budget for 2005 that provides significant increases in funding to win the War on Terror and protect the homeland, while limiting the growth in all other non-security related discretionary spending to less than one percent.

If you have suggested that they are simply paying lip service to this, than you are to some degree just restating the point that Bush (and again, with respect at least to military spending, Reagan) simply ignored the platform.

jeffd

07-12-2006, 01:04 PM

SlyFrog: For all but 8 of the past 26 years the Executive Branch has been controlled by conservatives. For the past 12 years the Legislative Branch has been controlled by the conservatives. For the past few years both branches have been controlled by conservatives.

Yet what we've had is ever escalating government spending.

It's not just Bush and Reagan who ignored the platform. It was a Republican congress who presided over the largest expansion of entitlement benefits in the past what, twenty years (Medicare part D).

Look, if I told you that I'm really a 19 year old tighbodied coed would you believe me? Despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that I'm a slightly portly 26 year old dude? Because that's what you're falling for if you think conservatism stands for reduced government spending. It's not just Bush and to a lesser extent Reagan - it's the conservative movement as a whole since 1980.

Unicorn McGriddle

07-12-2006, 06:05 PM

I'm really a 19 year old tighbodied coed

I WANT TO BELIEVE

SlyFrog

07-12-2006, 06:10 PM

For the past few years both branches have been controlled by conservatives.

Hence what I said earlier: He (and probably more specifically, the current Republican controlled congress)

I'm not really sure there's any issue here. I agree with you for the most part, with some nuance in the case of Reagan (who I believe spent more on the military primarily, as opposed to the current administration, which seems to be going nuts generally).

I recognize the massive deficits Reagan ran up; it would be interesting to see if he exploded other programs to the same extent Bush the Younger has.

Euri

07-12-2006, 06:42 PM

You know what would be great? A gay immigrant burning a flag - that would be awesome!

Just grab me a flag.

Midnight Son

07-12-2006, 07:22 PM

Andrew Mayer

07-12-2006, 08:01 PM

Hey, anyone remember when we had a SURPLUS under a DEMOCRATIC president?

Look, there are no fiscal conservatives anymore. They've pigged out, and topped it with a heapin' helpin' of corruption. You'll excuse me if if heap this pile of shit at the feet of those who are content to wallow in it.

Midnight Son

07-12-2006, 08:04 PM

Look, there are no fiscal conservatives anymore. They've pigged out, and topped it with a heapin' helpin' of corruption. You'll excuse me if if heap this pile of shit at the feet of those who are content to wallow in it.

Why do you hate America?

jeffd

07-12-2006, 10:14 PM

SlyFrog: Sounds like we're on the same page. I don't mean to be bitchy, I just get cranky when people trot out the whole "conservatives want to cut government spending" line. Yeah, that's what they say - but all available evidence indicates that in practice they don't believe in any such thing. I mean I guess there are probably a handful of Goldwater Republicans left out there somewhere, but they certainly don't form any kind of meaningful block of the modern conservative movement.

Jason McCullough

07-12-2006, 11:17 PM

How does "Reagan cut spending except for the military" count as cutting spending? You can go pull the spending tables if you want, but suffice to say that this is all you need to know about Reagan and spending (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_JM.html):

Well, let’s take a look at the Reagan legacy on federal spending and deficits. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

bago

07-13-2006, 02:48 AM

Like people aren't being anymore cloy and transparent as they have been in the past. It's just that the internet makes it easy to call.

SlyFrog

07-13-2006, 07:14 AM

How does "Reagan cut spending except for the military" count as cutting spending? You can go pull the spending tables if you want, but suffice to say that this is all you need to know about Reagan and spending (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_JM.html):

Because, there may actually be some nuance to the subject?

As I stated, I believe many conservatives have historically had "exceptions" to the anti-spending platform, military spending being one of those exceptions.

As I pretty clearly stated, Reagan to my knowledge increased military spending greatly. I do not know what his effect was on non-military spending (as in I honestly don't know; he may have jacked education spending through the roof, or the increase may have predominantly been due to military spending increases).

bago

07-13-2006, 07:30 AM

Reagan tried to do contractor friendly defense boosts, but the congress wanted to "balance" that with demo base spending. Net result, everyone spends like a drunken sailor becuase their bases are covered. Granted, I was 3 at the time.

Jason McCullough

07-13-2006, 11:03 AM

Historical budget tables (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf).

See table 8.4. Defense went from 4.9% to 5.8% (+0.9%) of GDP in the 1980 to 1988 time period, non-defense discretionary from 5.2% to 3.5% (-1.7%), the "other" category of mandatory programs dropped from 4.4% to 3.8% (-0.6%), interest increased from 1.9% to 3.0% (+1.1%).

The short version: federal spending decreased by 1/50th. This ridiculously tiny cut was accomplished by a 2.3% GDP decrease in social programs (other than social security and medicare) - student loan help was chopped by an enormous amount, for example - while giving a bunch of money (2% of GDP) to the military and bond traders.

Something of interest is that this spending cut was largely illusion, if you look at total spending for the federal, state, and local levels in Table 15.3. Total government outlays went from 31.3% to 31.6% to GDP (+0.3%). States largely increased their own spending to make up for the transfer cuts.

Total spending has hovered around 30% since the 1960s, regardless of who's in charge.