Please read the following article. According to the article what question should we focus on in a post 911 world? What is the basis for the analysis? Are they evaluating the cost benefit analysis properly? What does this article indicate about the economic assumption of rational decision making of people? Why are politicians afraid to cut homeland security spending?
10 Comments
Danny Brink
9/15/2011 12:13:35 pm
The main question that the author was trying to answer was, Is America safer today than it was a decade ago. I think this country is safer, but Greenblatt was trying to say that we are spending to much money on defending against terrorists than we need to. He states that we are spending over 50 billion dollars more than we did in 2001. I'm getting the feeling that the author is trying to tell the reader that the cost vs. benifit is almost not even worth it because the money we are putting in to prevent a threat is too much for the likelyhood of the chance of it actually happening. There are far more deaths in the world than terrorist attacks, like automobile accidents and drownings, which would make it more beneficial to put more money into those things, rather than the 72 billion dollars our government is putting into homeland security in 2011. I think the reason why the politicians are afraid to cut homeland security is because, as Mueller states, people are afraid to fly, and by cutting homeland security, it would put more fear into the people. And even with the chance of dying from a terrorist attack at 1 in 3.5 million a year, people are still feared of flying, so cutting homeland security would almost scare people into not even flying at all.
Reply
Joey Brink
9/15/2011 01:22:55 pm
The main question we should focus on in a post 9-11 world is how safe is America and how we should use our money for the safety of the people. I believe the country is a safer place now then it was a decade ago mostly because we're spending so much money to defend against terrorist threats and attacks. Our government is too focused on spending money on the defense against terrorism rather than focusing on the everyday safety issues such as car accidents and homicides. Everyone knows how a terrorist attack such as 9/11 can emotionally bring down communities and a country. But the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are extremely rare. The government is not evaluating the cost benefit analysis properly. Although spending so much money on terrorism is making the people feel more safe against terrorist attacks, it leaves out the money they could be using to save peoples lives from everyday activities. Some people that are constant flyers here in america are shaking in their boots because they are scared of a terrorist attack. A lot of people are deciding to simply not fly. Politicians are afraid to cut homeland security spending because they feel if they make a wrong decision, they will lose their position and power. They know that some people in this world want to feel safe from terrorist attacks so they want more spending in that department. So if politians cut homeland security, they feel people will get mad and not vote for them.
Reply
Ganga Gabs Calderon
9/15/2011 02:14:49 pm
The biggest question that arose from this article was: As a nation, are we safer today then we were ten years ago when 9/11 happened? The answer is a definite yes, after all we have plugged into tremendous debt by building up our army. Building up our army has cost us to fall into the trillions for our national debt. However, spending all of this money on war has made americans slowly feel safer in their day-to-day lives. If you disregard that factor, the cost is far too high for benefits when we haven't really had any threats as of recently, except for the potential bomb that never was found or never exploded in new york. Another contributing factor towards our plummeting economy is Home Loans Security, this is something that won't change anytime soon due to the fear politicians have of losing the support of voters, too much money is being invested into home land security. WIth that being said I do not concur with how money is being spent on weapons and bombs.
Reply
Matteo Abreu
9/15/2011 02:21:33 pm
The analysis provides a large amount of debate over the spending in Homeland Security. After the world trade buildings in New York city were attacked many people have created psychological viewpoint that all Islamic citizens are terrorist. We should be focusing on being a safer country but also how we can rebuild the country and break the psychiological threshold, stop being afraid of flying or sitting next to an Islam on the bus! The assumption people make is greatly enhanced by unpredictability and drama as Mueller debates, but is the cost worth the benefit? The body guard analogy is a perfect description of what this country is doing. Politicians won't cut the security policy partly due to what Joey states above, politicians love power and the majority of America is in favor of the policy. Polition doesnt get a vote for what he truely believes, also the budget cuts could spark another attack once the word spreads.
Reply
Janelle Borges
9/15/2011 02:44:12 pm
America over the past few years has developed some new security methods. Some have worked, but most have not. Like strip-searching a ninety-year-old grandmother because they think she might have a bomb on her, even though she could be flying from Texas to Alabama. So in that respect, no, Americans are not safer today than we were ten years ago. The caption of the picture said that the U.S. is spending over $70 billion dollars in homeland security, but me, an American, I have not been affected by this gargantuan amount of money going towards our security. I think that in order for Americans to be safe, ALL of the boarders need to be shut down. People flying into this country from say, a terrorist country, they are the ones who need to be searched. I’m not saying that we’ll find anything, because I’m sure that perfectly innocent people come from terrorist countries, but racial profiling would be appropriate. If people come into our country looking like terrorists, they are just asking for trouble. I think people are wasting time trying to be politically correct and trying not to offend people, but they are ignoring the typical profile of a terrorist. Security personnel that DO strip search grandma in an effort to appear politically correct; when in fact they would do much better to look at the statistics of the stereotypical terrorist. (http://nssc.haifa.ac.il/Terror/articles/profile.html) At the risk of being politically incorrect, if we need to racially profile, so be it. For the sake of our country’s safety, I think it is worth the sacrifice. Discrimination has been very much alive for centuries, why is it so bad if it continues a little longer just to keep us safe?
Reply
Michael Crean
9/15/2011 02:52:29 pm
According to the article, the main question we should focus on is if America is a safer place then it was before 9-11. And how the government should spend money trying to protect us. I believe that the world is a little bit safer, due to the fact that a few of al-Qaida's leaders have been taken out, but mainly because the government is spending "nearly a half-trillion dollars" trying to defend our country from terrorist attacks. I think that the cost out weights the benefit because the money we are spending trying to prevent threats is unreasonable. The 9-11 attacks really burnt a hole in the conscious of all Americans, but being involved or possibly killed in a terrorist attack is exceedingly rare. The reason that politicians are frightened to make budget cuts on homeland security is because if they did make cuts, they would most likely lose votes from the people. Also because spending lots of money on airport security helps deminish people's fear of flying. By cutting homeland security, people would become angery and more fightened because maybe to them, it's like the government saying that the people's saftey isn't their number one priority. And if they did make buget cuts, many of us probably wouldn't even know about it becasue most of it happens behind the scenes. The main thing we would notice is the decrease of security within airports.
Reply
Bryanna Barragan
9/15/2011 03:12:55 pm
The question that the article is trying to say is if the security of the US is safer? The US has gotten safer since the 9/11 attack. The goverment has been spending billions for security homeland. This year they would be spending $72 billion. People don't seem to think about the issues that are more likely to happen everyday, such as car accidents. When they should be paying money for that than on something less likely to occur, which is terrorism. Cost vs Benefit I'd say is not used properly. The governemnt knows that if they are paying for security homeland. People are going to be less afraid of terrorism and flying becuase they are going feel protected and that's also the reason for which the government don't want to cut security homeland.
Reply
Ethan behrens
9/15/2011 03:16:31 pm
The question that is focused on in this question is about homeland security in the United States and how it has change since 9/11. According to this we should cut back on the billions of dollars we spend each year and but that money into something else. The basis for this analysis’ is that the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is very low and that you have a much higher chance of being murdered on the streets. Muller feels that we spend way too much money on something that in the long run will barley lower the risk of a terrorist since the chances are already low. I do not think they are using the cost benefits analysis correctly. They are butting a large amount into this program and getting very little in return. This article shows that the economic assumption of people is that as long as there scared they will spend money on homeland to stay safe. That is the reason that the politics don’t wont to change this is because they know this country thrives on fear and that as long as they are scared they are willing to put there tax dollars into homeland security.
Reply
Jorge Benitez
9/15/2011 03:49:34 pm
9/11 has certainly scarred America and caused us to increase our national security. Now as the ten year anniversary of the horrid event the government increased national security payout by over $50 billion yearly. 9/11 has also petrified U.S. citizens. The scare, I believe, stupefied Americans to terrorist attack. They think it is better to spend billion on security for the highly unlikely possibility of another serious attack. The cost since 2001 added much to our growing debt. Although, this situation cannot be decided upon a black and white standard. A solution in the gray is what I feel to be the best outcome. The cost of trying to protect every single citizen is certainly outrageous but most feel necessary. The ratio I belief they used is U.S. lives over cost of the security. The chance of you being involved in a terrorist attack is very unlikely and not a common risk of the American people. Some of the money is said to be misspent which is not likely with their huge budget. The politicians involved don't want to see their money taken away ,which is indeed the reason to the reluctancy of the president cutting funds from the program
Reply
Emily Butler
9/15/2011 03:49:58 pm
One of the main questions that can be brought out of this article is, Is America safer with spending more money on security? I would say yes. It seems like before 9/11, we weren't spending that much on security and ever since 9/11 we've stepped up security, and I do think it has made a difference. We've spent more money on military and yes, it has put us in debt but it also has helped American's feel more and more safer. What question we should focus on, post 9/11 world is, Is Security worth the cost? And as I said before, yes. The country has most definitely become more safer since we've been paying more on security against attacks. Before 9/11 we didn't have all the security we go through in airports, the country was a very different place then, and now I feel like it is more safer. The basics for this analysis provides talk about the spending in Homeland Security. Homeland Security though, as Gaby says, won't change anytime soon due to the fact that politicians worry they will lose voters. I do think that they are evaluating cost benefit analysis properly, spending more on military will keep up are defense; making us more safer, spending money on security will help us be safe and the fact of knowing we are safe and more money spent on security will help prevent attacks. I think one of the reasons why politicians won't cut Homeland Security is because they know that people really care about it and they worry they might make the wrong decision and that people will disagree and not vote for them.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2014
Categories |