It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. to provide $1 billion to hire cops

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

The federal government will give $1 billion in grants to law enforcement agencies in every state to pay for the hiring and rehiring of law enforcement officers, Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder announced Tuesday.



The money comes from the stimulus bill -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- the officials said. The law is designed to help pull the U.S. out of its recession by providing and saving jobs, and helping those most affected by the downturn in the economy.

www.cnn.com...

$1 billion to each state to hire new and retired police. Interesting.
I'm sure there is more to this decision than we are lead to believe, as usual.



[edit on 28-7-2009 by warrenb]




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Rather than hiring more cops, this $ should go to paying them better, giving them more educational oppurtunities, and receiving way better training.

And maybe for paying for courses in Constitutional law courses as well.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
My mother-in-law dispenses Federal Grants to police forces in Florida. Her budget has increased 100x or 10,000% this year from Stimulus Money.

Her department had to hire more staff to be able to give the money away fast enough!!

This thing is real!



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
What the h*ll happened to the title???

I think ATS is being attacked by spammers!

I have seen a couple of other weird off-topic posts that were from brand new members, and quickly removed!



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Yes 1 billion but at the same time this is what Obama is proposing for the creation of jobs on the infrastructure of the nations.


How Much for Highways?

Congress is debating how much to spend fixing the nation's transportation system. Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, has been pushing a six-year, $500 billion bill to repair highways, bridges, airports and mass transit systems, among other things. But President Barack Obama and some Members of Congress instead support a smaller, $20 billion extension of current spending that would delay an overhaul for at least another 18 months.


www.congress.org...

I guess the money to stimulate the economy is just been micromanaged by the government itself before is released.


I bet a lot of that money will never be released to the states at all.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
You Go, Warrenb.


It is very interesting to see two different spins on the same story.

The one you quoted makes it seem a lot more positive.


I'm all FOR that. Have you read the source from WSJ?
WSJ (same article?)

Do you think CNN is just trying to put a more positive spin on it? Why?

Do you think this makes either one more credible? I'm just really interested in your take on the incredibly different presentations of the same information.

Am I chasing windmills again?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 

I may have misread the news, but I don't think each state gets one billion, I think the billion is scattered among all the states:
news.yahoo.com...

abcnews.go.com...

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Wait a moment, people don't get confused this stimulus is one time thing.

So this grants will be temporary grants meaning that it will last perhaps 4 years from the time that they will be awarded.

So when the grants run out of money what they are going to do? fire all the people they hired?.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Wait a moment, people don't get confused this stimulus is one time thing.

So this grants will be temporary grants meaning that it will last perhaps 4 years from the time that they will be awarded.

So when the grants run out of money what they are going to do? fire all the people they hired?.


Great Question!! It could be that they are only worried about the short-term here. What do they know that we do not know?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Perhaps the four years is how long they estimate it will take to distribute the $$$'s, hire, train and turn the new hires into profitable, revenue generating officers.

After that, they will more than make up for their costs in the revenue they generate.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



So when the grants run out of money what they are going to do? fire all the people they hired?.


Nope, just increase the number of tickets they write.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Hmm, so the government is going to allow individual states to raise their own little armies eh?

Well that will be usefull when they decided to seperate from the Union I guess. Milk it for all it's worth.

No but really, half that money should go to what they say, and the other half should go into training and equipment. Ohh and by training I mean how to act properly around civilians and not be a totalitarian, kind of training.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So when the grants run out of money what they are going to do? fire all the people they hired?.


What'll happen is when it comes time to tighten the sans stimulus belt the towns will go on about how they need to raise taxes on their residents or they'll be forced to let go of cops making their streets less safe and folks will rally to the call to pay pay pay lest they be subjected to the horrors of a police force without armored assault vehicles and hovercraft.

Any positions that are created with stimulus money will ultimately be used to impose more taxation and fear on the population.

Ever see the Simpsons "Bear Patrol" episode? Bear Patrol episode



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Maybe it's the way CNN worded it


The federal government will give $1 billion in grants to law enforcement agencies in every state


this implicitly implies that in every state they are giving $1billion dollars to law enforcement.

Blame CNN for being incompetent journalists




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Is it just me or has there already been a huge increase in the amount of law enforcement around already, 8 months ago i could drive around all day and maybe see 2-3 cops, but now if i drive to work (a 5 min. drive) I usually pass this many. I've Had several run-ins with the police lately as well, accusing me and my friends of anything they can come up with, I guess this is to be expected since I am a teenager who's apparently "up to no good" but I've never had this issue before.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Maybe it's the way CNN worded it

Blame CNN for being incompetent journalists



I agree, journalism isn't what it used to be, just like most other professions. Killing the language... :shk:


Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Hmm, so the government is going to allow individual states to raise their own little armies eh?


You know, you'd think those millions would go a long, long way or hire a lot of LEOs.
But no: according to the list on the link below, each cop is costing the federal money like $150,00 to $200,000+.
Money doesn't seem to go as far as it used to, I guess.

www.detnews.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
You know, this doesn't make sense - and it drives me nuts when the govt does this - but they are completely disregarding criminological research to date. Yeah, I suppose if you want to fill a bunch of jobs where prior experience/education isn't a necessity, the police force would be one place to do it (no offense to any police officers out there).

However, most criminological studies show that increasing the presence of police has no effect on crime rates or perceived police presence. I believe it was the Kansas City experiment that exhibited this first.

This is constantly being suggested/instituted/etc. by legislators, but the crime rate has been decreasing since the beginning of this decade, since before we decided to beef up the cops. Why not research that instead?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


This happened back under Clinton with his what was it, 50,000 more police on the streets. After those grant funds were exhasuted, the local news reported many of the "new" cops were let go. But they wrote a Hell of a lot less tickets back then it seems ......dude......MOMONEY..



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join