1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    487

    Question Homeland Security Money

    I was visting in Vermont the other day when I learned that the state of Vermont hands out homeland security funds (not firefighter assistance) from the feds to the local department. NY keeps the money and does not distribute to the local fd.

    What does your state do with Homeland Security money?




    Edited for grammar
    Last edited by CaptainS; 04-06-2005 at 04:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    What does Vermont need much Homeland Security money for in the first place? Is someone threatening our Maple Syrup supply?
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Diane E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Maryland (but always a Long Islander first)
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Well, VT is a border state and people do cross borders.
    "When I was young, my ambition was to be one of the people who made a difference in this world. My hope is to leave the world a little better for my having been there."
    -- Jim Henson (1936 - 1990)

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Waterboro, Maine
    Posts
    520

    Default

    Maine divides the money and gives it to the counties according to the population. The county then keeps a bit for some of their projects, and then towns apply for it by writing a project description and narrative. The county commisioners and ema directors review, and award the money to the towns untill it runs out. The early bird gets the worm format.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace
    What does Vermont need much Homeland Security money for in the first place? Is someone threatening our Maple Syrup supply?
    Yeah, lets get rid of any funding Vermont gets, after all, they're just a Maple Syrup supply.

    Tell me, why shouldn't Vermont get it's fair share of the money, after all, we pay for it too.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Waterboro, Maine
    Posts
    520

    Default

    Yah, I like maple syrup.

  7. #7
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Salem, Massachusetts
    Posts
    422

    Default

    I wanna know why he wanted to visit Vermont in the first place.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Keystone, OK
    Posts
    64

    Default

    In Oklahoma the State Homeland Security office has a grant program that departments can apply for.
    Brian Cook
    Asst. Chief

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ullrichk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deleted by the forum gremlins
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Much of the homeland security money in Tennessee getting to the fire service is going toward regional emergency management and response. For example, my department is set to be part of an eight county hazmat team in the near future.

    Other money is going straight to the counties. In my county at least, a good part of this gets to local police and fire departments.
    ullrichk
    a.k.a.
    perfesser

    a ship in a harbor is safe. . . but that's not what ships are for

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Tell me, why shouldn't Vermont get it's fair share of the money, after all, we pay for it too.
    Two words...

    Howard Dean.
    Last edited by GeorgeWendtCFI; 04-07-2005 at 02:01 PM.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by Res343cue


    Yeah, lets get rid of any funding Vermont gets, after all, they're just a Maple Syrup supply.

    Tell me, why shouldn't Vermont get it's fair share of the money, after all, we pay for it too.
    Real simply, Homeland Security money needs to go where the real threats are. NYC, DC, L.A. and other high profile target areas are not getting the funds they really need because non-target areas are taking up more then their fair share of the funds.

    When Canadia is a true enemy and threat then we can send more money to the northern border with a clear conscience. Right now we are sending Homeland SECURITY money where it is not needed to make folks feel important or to quite their loud politicians.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Our Governor gives the majority to the State Police and let's most cities struggle instead of funneling the monies down to the local goverments.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Two words...

    Howard Dean.
    Couldn't agree with you more. But hey, he's not a Vermont native, don't hold it against us.

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace
    Real simply, Homeland Security money needs to go where the real threats are. NYC, DC, L.A. and other high profile target areas are not getting the funds they really need because non-target areas are taking up more then their fair share of the funds.

    When Canadia is a true enemy and threat then we can send more money to the northern border with a clear conscience. Right now we are sending Homeland SECURITY money where it is not needed to make folks feel important or to quite their loud politicians.
    Homeland Security isn't just about "high profile targets". Homeland Security means boarder protection too. Get rid of any funding we have, might as well get rid of the new Boarder Patrol checkpoint too. If Vermont isn't needed as a key player, let's get rid of our boarder protection.

    To make us feel important? To quiet our loud politicians? No.

    If all areas are not getting the funding they need, the amount of funding should be increased. It's not reasonable, or responsible to cut other areas.

    Vermont, New Hampshire, Mass, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, we're all "pretty small" compared to many of the other states, and although we may not be a "high profile target", if you took away the funding to New England states, you're creating a very targettable area.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace
    Real simply, Homeland Security money needs to go where the real threats are. NYC, DC, L.A. and other high profile target areas are not getting the funds they really need because non-target areas are taking up more then their fair share of the funds.

    When Canadia is a true enemy and threat then we can send more money to the northern border with a clear conscience. Right now we are sending Homeland SECURITY money where it is not needed to make folks feel important or to quite their loud politicians.
    Yeah, you wouldn't want it to go to one of those Middle America cities where terrorists would never strike, right? Like Oklahoma City?

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    Yeah, you wouldn't want it to go to one of those Middle America cities where terrorists would never strike, right? Like Oklahoma City?
    George, didn't that already happen? Like 1995?

    I guess we shouldn't worry about other "low priority" places. I mean, it's just high priority targets that make up the US


  16. #16
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Salem, Massachusetts
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

    Yeah, you wouldn't want it to go to one of those Middle America cities where terrorists would never strike, right? Like Oklahoma City?
    The bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was done by "domestic" terrorists. Shouldn't our main concern be Al-Quiada and other foreign born terrorist groups?

    Rescue343, how could anybody possibly think the New England states are NOT a "high profile target"? On 9/11/01, the terrorists high-jacked the planes after flying into Boston's Logan International Airport from an airport in Maine! They probably gained access to our country from the Canadian border. To me, this makes the New England states a priority! They're already here!!!

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Res343cue


    George, didn't that already happen? Like 1995?

    I guess we shouldn't worry about other "low priority" places. I mean, it's just high priority targets that make up the US

    Surely you recognize the satire in my post.

    OK City is precisely the reason why the Homeland Security money should not be limited to the big cities. I am not certain that you can make a good argument for buying spohisticated equipment for every FD in the country (regionalization is the obvious answer), the fact of the matter is that terrorists could strike anywhere the populaiton is the most vulnerable.

    Could you imagine the panic that would set in if these attacks were taken out of the cities and into the mom and pop areas of this country? Look at cases like the sniper in Maryland/Virginia or the mailbox bomber in the Midwest. Look at Columbine. Look at OK City.

    If you believe that terrorism is solely perpetrated by men in turbans and women in full length burkas, you are sadly mistaken.

    Research question: Where did the first succesful bio-terrorism attack in US history occur and when?

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Think of many smaller planes, full of high explosives. Take a coordinated attack on a dozen large high schools, Wal-Marts, county fairs, etc. in rural communities, spread throughout the country.

    Better yet, load that plane up with dirty radioactive material, or bio or chem agents. Not only would you cause mass hysteria throughout the whole U.S., you would seriously challenge the resources of an already thin National Guard. I suspect they wouldn't have enough teams to deploy to each site to properly handle the problem. Regardless of how effective the attack would be from a casualty point of view, resources would still be tapped out.

    Our distribution of state Homeland Security funds was regionalized. We have a nearby department's HazMat and Tech Rescue team to come help, thankfully, with their knowlege that if they took the money they would help their neighbors. We'd never get to their level of training and equipment with the fraction of the funds we would get.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    487

    Default

    Reserve172

    I live just across the boarder in NY. Lookin for some maple syrup you know.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Give it to Newark NJ, they need more garbage trucks.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Rescue343, how could anybody possibly think the New England states are NOT a "high profile target"? On 9/11/01, the terrorists high-jacked the planes after flying into Boston's Logan International Airport from an airport in Maine! They probably gained access to our country from the Canadian border. To me, this makes the New England states a priority! They're already here!!!
    Ask Dennis.

    Canadian boarder? Isn't Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and many other states in the US on the boarder? Doesn't domestic prepardedness, and homeland security mean protecting our boarders not only from "overseas terrorists" but from our own too? George's OK City example is a fine one at that.

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    Surely you recognize the satire in my post.
    Yes, and I agree completely with you, 100%

  22. #22
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Salem, Massachusetts
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Originally posted by Res343cue


    Vermont, New Hampshire, Mass, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, we're all "pretty small" compared to many of the other states, and although we may not be a "high profile target", if you took away the funding to New England states, you're creating a very targettable area.
    Rescue343--- It sounds to me in your quote that you agree we are NOT a "high profile target" unless they take away our funding. Looking back on how the events of 9/11/01 unfolded, it seems to me that we already have been an easy target (indirectly) because the terrorists felt comfortable enough here to use this region to take advantage of our whole country!!!

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Originally posted by RESERVE172


    Rescue343--- It sounds to me in your quote that you agree we are NOT a "high profile target" unless they take away our funding. Looking back on how the events of 9/11/01 unfolded, it seems to me that we already have been an easy target (indirectly) because the terrorists felt comfortable enough here to use this region to take advantage of our whole country!!!
    Yes, I do believe we are seeing eye to eye.

  24. #24
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Salem, Massachusetts
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Originally posted by Res343cue


    Yes, I do believe we are seeing eye to eye.
    Do we? I'm not sure. I meant you agreed with George. I believe we were and still are a "high profile target", with or without the funding!

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Our Dept got Homeland Security money to put in new security cameras outside the stations. They replaced the 2 year old cameras we already had. The computer systems manager says, "It's grant money, it didn't come out of our budget." They have a zoom on them, so the Chief can sit at his computer and look through the office window and see what's on your stations' computer.
    Meanwhile, we have 15 year old PPV fans and saws on the truck companies.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register