Republicans are against spending $650K in order to save $5 million

[Phokus]

http://www.charlotteobserver.c...tics/story/581995.html

?How does one manage a beaver?? U.S. Sen. John McCain asked his followers from the Senate floor this week.

McCain's derisive comments ? ?$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi,? he typed on his Twitter mini-blog ? came as part of his continuing campaign against directed spending, or earmarks, in the federal government.

But he angered workers in North Carolina who say they know full well how to manage beavers: Trap the critters, blow up their dams and let the water flow.

State and federal wildlife officials claim to have saved nearly $5 million last year in potential flood damage to farms, timber lands, roadways and other infrastructure through its Beaver Management Assistance Program ? the same one McCain was making fun of in Washington.

Here's an idea guys, lets go line by line in the budget and find the goofiest sounding programs and call that 'pork', without actually figuring out the reason behind the spending.

Vancouver-based scientist Jeff Wynn described himself as "dumbfounded" when his program was mocked on a national telecast a few days ago.

That was just part of the feedback after Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered the Republican response Tuesday to President Obama's address to Congress. Jindal's examples of wasteful spending included "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.'"

"I am dumbfounded that the governor of a state devastated by natural disasters would sneer at any effort to protect the public," said Wynn, who is based at the Cascades Volcano Observatory in Vancouver.

"He probably picked the best example of the U.S. government spending money prudently to protect human life," said Wynn, a research geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Volcano Monitoring? Heh, stupid liberals, that's the dumbest thing i've ever hea--

http://img171.imageshack.us/my...78fce422b5163e25a9.jpg

Oh

 

[spidey07]

McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

 

[blackangst1]

Hmmm. By your logic here, lets see.

Obama smokes, therefore, Democrats smoke.

Got it.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

yeap i agree.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

It's the same damn thing with the "Patriot Act" but in reverse... Republicans want you to be for or against a bill based on the name alone, forget what's inside the bill or the logic for passing it.

"What, you voted AGAINST the Puppies and Kittens act? YOU MONSTER! *"

*the puppies and kittens act gives $10,000,000 in aid to terrorists

 

[Brainonska511]

Nothing wrong with going through the budget and removing wasteful spending, but picking out random things without finding out what they actually do makes you look like a moron.

 

[winnar111]

Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

 

[Phokus]

I guess the Beaver Management department should rename themselves the "The Department of Preventing $5 million dollars worth of flood based damage annually due to beaver dams"

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

http://kalleboo.mirror.wafflei...9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

McCani is banking that people will dismiss it as wasteful spending based on the name alone... "beaver management". It DOES sound wasteful and stupid until you find out what they actually do.

He doesn't even go into why he thinks it's wasteful.

I imagine if they have historical experience with floods due to beaver dams, it's probably worth taking care of.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

Yes, let's just stop having people live in the Pacific Northwest because it's too close to volcanoes. Or California because there are Earthquakes. Or the Southeast because of hurricanes. Or the midwest because of tornadoes. Or the Northeast because of blizzards. Or the south because of fires. Or Hawaii because of tsunamis. Or Appalachia because of mudslides. Or Kansas because of sinkholes. Or the Rockies because of avalanches. Or the moon because of meteors.

There is absolutely no place on Earth, not one single place, that is free from any potential natural disaster. Your claim is therefore the most singularly stupid response we could possibly have to any natural disaster efforts we would think to engage in. Are you really this stupid?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

I guess the only way to find out is let them build dams and flood then measure the cost of the damage. I don't think it's a good idea though.

I don't mean to derail the thread but $530/year for insurance on a $230K home? We pay $1400+ and our place is worth like $100K right now. FL freaking sucks. :frown:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

You would pay 10% if there was a 20% chance of collecting.

Without more information, we don't know if they statistically prevented $5million in damage, because they saved $50 million of once-in-10-years damage, which would be a great bargain, or if they're counting some other, less useful way.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

http://kalleboo.mirror.wafflei...9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg

You don't have permission to access /files/79/7959178fce422b5163e25a9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg on this server.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

I guess the only way to find out is let them build dams and flood then measure the cost of the damage. I don't think it's a good idea though.

I don't mean to derail the thread but $530/year for insurance on a $230K home? We pay $1400+ and our place is worth like $100K right now. FL freaking sucks. :frown:

Your state is requiring some new mandate that raises the rates. My dad owns two condo's in Ft. Meyers and was pissing and moaning to me about the new mandate that will cost him a few hundred each condo this year. I think it centers around hurricane protection but dont quote me. MN the only thing we really have to worry about is storm damage or fire. Where we live there isnt much flooding and winters dont produce damage. So basically I am insuring for 3-4 months a year in potential losses from storms.

 

[spidey07]

One could also ask why this is even a federal earmark? Why isn't this being handled by the state fish and wildlife department?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

http://kalleboo.mirror.wafflei...9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg

You don't have permission to access /files/79/7959178fce422b5163e25a9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg on this server.

http://img171.imageshack.us/my...78fce422b5163e25a9.jpg

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Nothing wrong with going through the budget and removing wasteful spending, but picking out random things without finding out what they actually do makes you look like a moron.

Exactly.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

That's how this President operates. Even Democrats are calling him out:

http://www.staugustine.com/sto...iness_030809_028.shtml


Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."


Same thinking applies.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

I guess the only way to find out is let them build dams and flood then measure the cost of the damage. I don't think it's a good idea though.

I don't mean to derail the thread but $530/year for insurance on a $230K home? We pay $1400+ and our place is worth like $100K right now. FL freaking sucks. :frown:

Your state is requiring some new mandate that raises the rates. My dad owns two condo's in Ft. Meyers and was pissing and moaning to me about the new mandate that will cost him a few hundred each condo this year. I think it centers around hurricane protection but dont quote me. MN the only thing we really have to worry about is storm damage or fire. Where we live there isnt much flooding and winters dont produce damage. So basically I am insuring for 3-4 months a year in potential losses from storms.

Unfortunately, this isn't new. About 6-7 years ago our insurance went from $500-ish to $1500. The only 'company' that would cover my area was Citizens (govt). When another company opened up to new policies in my area we got a reduction to $1100. Over the past 3 years that's gone up ~ $100/year to arrive at the $1400+ we pay now. I should mention our area (Tampa Bay) hasn't had a direct hit in many decades and our specific area isn't even a flood zone (no evacuation).

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

http://kalleboo.mirror.wafflei...9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg

You don't have permission to access /files/79/7959178fce422b5163e25a9ae1e504014a7e0884.jpg on this server.

http://img171.imageshack.us/my...78fce422b5163e25a9.jpg

Ah, thanks. I watched a documentary of some sort on that a while back. Scary.

 

[halik]

"saved nearly $5 million last year in potential flood damage to farms"

Sorry but

1) shouldn't that be funded by the state?

2) "potential flood damage" != money saved

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

Yes, let's just stop having people live in the Pacific Northwest because it's too close to volcanoes. Or California because there are Earthquakes. Or the Southeast because of hurricanes. Or the midwest because of tornadoes. Or the Northeast because of blizzards. Or the south because of fires. Or Hawaii because of tsunamis. Or Appalachia because of mudslides. Or Kansas because of sinkholes. Or the Rockies because of avalanches. Or the moon because of meteors.

There is absolutely no place on Earth, not one single place, that is free from any potential natural disaster. Your claim is therefore the most singularly stupid response we could possibly have to any natural disaster efforts we would think to engage in. Are you really this stupid?

short answer? Yes.
long answer? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS