Is America spending too much on homeland security?

caraher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 09:37 PM
Original message

Is America spending too much on homeland security?

From http://www7.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/04/deterring_terrorism">The Economist:

America has increased homeland security spending by more than $1 trillion in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/MID11TSM.PDF">A new academic paper from John Mueller (of Ohio State University) and Mark Stewart (of the University of Newcastle in Australia) attempts to determine whether the return on investment justified those huge expenditures. They also ask whether policymakers ever considered anything remotely resembling a cost-benefit analysis before they spent all that money. The answer in both cases, it seems, is no:

"o be deemed cost-effective, would have to deter, prevent, foil, or protect against 1,667 otherwise successful Times-Square type attacks per year, or more than four per day. Although there are emotional and political pressures on the terrorism issue, this does not relieve politicians and bureaucrats of the fundamental responsibility of informing the public of the limited risk that terrorism presents and of seeking to expend funds wisely. Moreover, political concerns may be over-wrought: restrained reaction has often proved to be entirely acceptable politically."

As a friend pointed out to me, a dubious premise here is the notion that this spending is indeed chiefly for the purpose of deterring terror attacks... still, it's good to see an analysis that shoots holes in the idea that such spending is rational at the levels currently seen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ixion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 09:50 PM
Response to Original message

1. Short Answer? YES!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Paradoxical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 09:50 PM
Response to Original message

2. Is America spending too much on defense? How about a fuck yes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

uponit7771

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 10:14 PM
Response to Original message

3. FUCK YES,,....MIC has to stay relivant some how

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftstreet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 10:16 PM
Response to Original message

4. K&R

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

progressoid

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 10:20 PM
Response to Original message

5. Does the Pope shit in the woods?

er something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

valerief

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-03-11 10:43 PM
Response to Original message

6. Uh, if you have to ask, you're not paying attention! nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JDPriestly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-04-11 06:26 AM
Response to Original message

7. Yes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hannah Bell

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-04-11 06:30 AM
Response to Original message

8. dismantle the whole thing. what have they done? imo just a slush fund for covert ops & domestic

spying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 09th 2024, 11:24 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.