GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds

[Councilman]

GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds - Washington Times

The tiny mouse that became a hotly disputed symbol of wasteful spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill has returned to pester House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
============================================================
No you are not dreaming and this is not a joke

You owe it to yourself to read this story and let the reality of it sink in. We are talking about a varmint here that has been a pest for over 100 years and if it passes into the next plane of existence or even the twilight zone it will not be missed and is not needed. Is this the real stimulus plan Obama had in his plan or the usual wasteful liberal spending for a pet projects that we can't afford when people are losing their jobs. The Speaker of the House is a total waste of space and is using far too much oxygen.
This is sick and needs to come to an end and people placed ahead of things like pests and the worthless Delta Smelt, Obama lover and Rino Arnold Schwarzenegger is allowing lack of brains and ideas drive people out of work and farm land out of production and food to go in short supply and prices to go through the roof to save a fish at the cost of all I just mentioned.
This over the top idiocy that controls the brains of the so-called environmentalists and makes to sense what ever. For example they don't want to cut down old growth trees because they provide Oxygen from CO2. What they fail to understand is that young replacement trees grow faster and suck up more CO2 than old slow growing trees.
So lets save a worthless mouse and fish and to hell with the people.
Way to go Nasty Piglousy again you are true to form.

 

[sam_w]

ZOMG $16.1 MILLION

To which is pittance, but I guess even $1 dollar spent on protecting an ecosystem is to much for you. I have to ask, do you ever wonder why only 6% of scientist are Republican?

Seriously, if anything this shows we need MORE funding in the basic sciences for children, because way too many are showing gross amounts of ignorance these days. You really need to relearn the basics of ecosystems.

As for your comment on trees, is this an acknowledgment on your part that C02 levels are dangerous?

 

[Sturmrabe]

GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds - Washington Times

The tiny mouse that became a hotly disputed symbol of wasteful spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill has returned to pester House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
============================================================
No you are not dreaming and this is not a joke


Way to go Nasty Piglousy again you are true to form.

I'm new around here, but shouldn't cut and paste posts from editorial websites or forwarded along through to other people on the same party-line email list emails be closed/moved?

Not that I haven't seen several over the last few days, but they had the common decency to use a quote box

 

[Councilman]

ZOMG $16.1 MILLION

To which is pittance, but I guess even $1 dollar spent on protecting an ecosystem is to much for you. I have to ask, do you ever wonder why only 6% of scientist are Republican?

Seriously, if anything this shows we need MORE funding in the basic sciences for children, because way too many are showing gross amounts of ignorance these days. You really need to relearn the basics of ecosystems.

As for your comment on trees, is this an acknowledgment on your part that C02 levels are dangerous?

CO2 levels will not be affected appreciably by the Cap and Trade BS.
The Cap and Trade Delusion -- Seeking Alpha
CO2 Cap Would Hurt Calif. Economy - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News
The threat of global warming is and has always been a hoax dreamed up to raise more money for the tax and spend Liberals. Growing new trees makes sense because the lumber that could be harvested would help to create and or replace jobs lost by thoughtless regulations based of bad information. The Army research Office says any warming now is 86% due to the Sun in a normal cycle. On top of that temperatures or down all over with 21 states setting record lows last in the last 12 months.
Just because I appose stupid useless legislation that is based on bad science and is designed as Obama's is to hurt the Nation does not mean I appose logical non radical steps to improve or environment and make better use of our finite resources. Just the opposite is true, but i will always appose the use of fear tactics to do nothing more than raise money for projects that do little or nothing to help and do hurt real people because little or no practical thought was put into them.
A great example of environmentalists needing mental health care is the burning of Hummers a while back. They put more filth into the air in a few hours than the Hummers they destroyed would have produced in the life of the vehicles.
Is global warming real? Probably to some degree. But is it man made? I doubt it. I have heard scientists say that if they look back over time the cycles come and go. And the CO2 levels have done the same for various reasons.
Having a high percentage of scientist claim to be Liberals is another good reason to look closely at what they claim. Is it real or is it part of the hysterical hype job the politicians push every day.
And don't to jump to your own conclusions and then try to project them into what someone else said and thus attempt to change the meaning of what was said by them.

 

[sam_w]

CO2 levels will not be affected appreciably by the Cap and Trade BS.
The Cap and Trade Delusion -- Seeking Alpha
CO2 Cap Would Hurt Calif. Economy - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News
The threat of global warming is and has always been a hoax dreamed up to raise more money for the tax and spend Liberals. Growing new trees makes sense because the lumber that could be harvested would help to create and or replace jobs lost by thoughtless regulations based of bad information. The Army research Office says any warming now is 86% due to the Sun in a normal cycle. On top of that temperatures or down all over with 21 states setting record lows last in the last 12 months.
Just because I appose stupid useless legislation that is based on bad science and is designed as Obama's is to hurt the Nation does not mean I appose logical non radical steps to improve or environment and make better use of our finite resources. Just the opposite is true, but i will always appose the use of fear tactics to do nothing more than raise money for projects that do little or nothing to help and do hurt real people because little or no practical thought was put into them.
A great example of environmentalists needing mental health care is the burning of Hummers a while back. They put more filth into the air in a few hours than the Hummers they destroyed would have produced in the life of the vehicles.
Is global warming real? Probably to some degree. But is it man made? I doubt it. I have heard scientists say that if they look back over time the cycles come and go. And the CO2 levels have done the same for various reasons.
Having a high percentage of scientist claim to be Liberals is another good reason to look closely at what they claim. Is it real or is it part of the hysterical hype job the politicians push every day.
And don't to jump to your own conclusions and then try to project them into what someone else said and thus attempt to change the meaning of what was said by them.

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
This is where you get your science?

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Humans blamed for climate change

Global climate change is "very likely" to have a human cause, an influential group of scientists has concluded.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.

It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms.

The findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year.

"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities

Does it really make you feel proud to be so ignorant and misinformed just to continue believing something discredited? It is for good reason that people use the term "Flat-Earth crowd" to describe your level of knowledge. Maybe it is worth the while to actually get off the couch for once and take an honest approach to the issue and look at the overwhelming number of sources who have the same conclusion. You have absolutely zero clue to the issue, so therefore you have stated as fact for yourself something that does not exist. In essence you have created your own reality separate from the world.

Taking pride in being ignorant is not virtuous, it is stupidity.

 

[tumbleweed]

It seems some elephants really are scared of mice.

The mouse in question is nothing more than a convenient political scapegoat. According to Republicans back in February it was a $30 million mouse, but due to a downturn in the economy it seems to have depreciated to $16.1 million.

Since this mouse is protected by the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it, and in the process a 1,990 acre ecosystem benefits as well. The ecosystem in question was originally 164,000 acres, but if something isn't done asap there won't even be anything to restore.

 

[apdst]

, but if something isn't done asap there won't even be anything to restore.

Is that when the world comes to an end?

 

[Kernel Sanders]

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

The $700B stimulus is spending a piddly $16M on the San Francisco Bay. Because a kind of mouse happens to live there (shocking I know) you're bitching? There's plenty not to like about the stimulus. No need to manufacture outrage

 

[celticlord]

ZOMG $16.1 MILLION

To which is pittance, but I guess even $1 dollar spent on protecting an ecosystem is to much for you. I have to ask, do you ever wonder why only 6% of scientist are Republican?

Seriously, if anything this shows we need MORE funding in the basic sciences for children, because way too many are showing gross amounts of ignorance these days. You really need to relearn the basics of ecosystems.

As for your comment on trees, is this an acknowledgment on your part that C02 levels are dangerous?

How many lasting jobs are created by this expenditure?

How what contribution to economic growth is made by this expenditure?

If the answers to these questions are "none", why is this expenditure contained in a piece of legislation whose stated purposes are job creation and economic growth?

 

[Baralis]

ZOMG $16.1 MILLION

To which is pittance, but I guess even $1 dollar spent on protecting an ecosystem is to much for you. I have to ask, do you ever wonder why only 6% of scientist are Republican?

Seriously, if anything this shows we need MORE funding in the basic sciences for children, because way too many are showing gross amounts of ignorance these days. You really need to relearn the basics of ecosystems.

As for your comment on trees, is this an acknowledgment on your part that C02 levels are dangerous?

It is silly that the GOP will make such a big stink over this when they had billions of dollars of pork in the bill. Its politics as usual.

But borrowing money to study a mouse (and everything else in the bill both rep and dem projects) reguardless of the ecosystem is just dumb. It would be a completely different argument if we had no debt and had a surplus then I would be perfectly fine with studying a mouse or anything else if the taxpayers agreed on it.

I guess it has become the social norm for america to spend now and pay later. It was shown (i think 2007) that on average americans owed more then anytime in history.

 

[tumbleweed]

Is that when the world comes to an end?

I have no idea if it is or not, but it could be the point where the ecosystem in question becomes uninhabitable, becoming nothing more than a leach field for the sewage systems that seems to be one of the major contributors to it's demise. An ecosystem that we, the taxpayer, are obligated to protect.

 

[celticlord]

I have no idea if it is or not, but it could be the point where the ecosystem in question becomes uninhabitable, becoming nothing more than a leach field for the sewage systems that seems to be one of the major contributors to it's demise. An ecosystem that we, the taxpayer, are obligated to protect.

How many jobs does protecting an ecosystem produce?

What is the economic growth realized from ecosystem protection?

 

[apdst]

Does anyone remember when the Dems swore up-n-down that there no money alocated for the marsh mouse?

 

[apdst]

I have no idea if it is or not, but it could be the point where the ecosystem in question becomes uninhabitable, becoming nothing more than a leach field for the sewage systems that seems to be one of the major contributors to it's demise. An ecosystem that we, the taxpayer, are obligated to protect.

How's about we wait until we know, before we throw money at something like this in the middle of the worst economic slump in 80 years?

 

[Gibberish]

How many jobs does protecting an ecosystem produce?

What is the economic growth realized from ecosystem protection?

It's not a requirement that environmental programs add directly to the economy for them to still be a positive program. It can add indirectly by allowing people to successfully populate the region.

As for the mouse project. Protecting a wetland around San Fransisco bay is quite larger then just protecting a single species. The wetlands close to my home have mice too. Along with hundreds of different species of birds and plants. Some of them unique to only the location.

 

[celticlord]

It's not a requirement that environmental programs add directly to the economy for them to still be a positive program. It can add indirectly by allowing people to successfully populate the region.

If the spending is not directly stimulative to the economy, why is it found in legislation meant to directly stimulate the economy?

 

[WI Crippler]

If the spending is not directly stimulative to the economy, why is it found in legislation meant to directly stimulate the economy?

Because if you attach such spending, to an economic stimulus bill, and everybody does it as well with other projects, it can avoid much needed scrutiny. Also, because of the "dire" need for economic stimulus, this attachment will likely get passed.

I do this with my son. Its called a piggyback ride.

 

[Kushinator]

It seems some elephants really are scared of mice.

The mouse in question is nothing more than a convenient political scapegoat. According to Republicans back in February it was a $30 million mouse, but due to a downturn in the economy it seems to have depreciated to $16.1 million.

Since this mouse is protected by the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it, and in the process a 1,990 acre ecosystem benefits as well. The ecosystem in question was originally 164,000 acres, but if something isn't done asap there won't even be anything to restore.

But is that "stimulus"? Not as far as i am considered. A separate spending bill should have been implemented for such pork... er.... mouse:rofl

 

[tumbleweed]

How many jobs does protecting an ecosystem produce?

What is the economic growth realized from ecosystem protection?

Those are good questions. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this particular project to have an answer yet, but I'm trying to find out. I'd like to know as well.

 

[apdst]

Those are good questions. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this particular project to have an answer yet, but I'm trying to find out. I'd like to know as well.

It doesn't take alotta research to figure out that this is just another prime example that the, "Stimulus", Package was nothing more than funding for every Liberal wet dream that's been dreamed up over the past 30 years.

 

[Kushinator]

It doesn't take alotta research to figure out that this is just another prime example that the, "Stimulus", Package was nothing more than funding for every Liberal wet dream that's been dreamed up over the past 30 years.

Not every one. To be fair, they didn't push UHC through on this accord.

 

[tumbleweed]

It doesn't take alotta research to figure out that this is just another prime example that the, "Stimulus", Package was nothing more than funding for every Liberal wet dream that's been dreamed up over the past 30 years.

I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon until I know more about these projects and the long term impact they have. I also don't think that it's just Liberal's wet dreams coming true. I believe the Republicans had a few of those wet dreams in this stimulus package too.

 

[phattonez]

How many lasting jobs are created by this expenditure?

How what contribution to economic growth is made by this expenditure?

If the answers to these questions are "none", why is this expenditure contained in a piece of legislation whose stated purposes are job creation and economic growth?

Because you know just as well as I that government spending does not lead to economic growth. Government knows that too, and this is just another manifestation of that. This was nothing more than a list of pet projects.

 

[phattonez]

Not every one. To be fair, they didn't push UHC through on this accord.

There's a lot more emotion and spending associated with that though. I'm glad that at least it's not getting rushed through like everything else that seemingly gets rammed through today.

 

[apdst]

Not every one. To be fair, they didn't push UHC through on this accord.

No, of course not every wet dream. There's not enough money in the world to do that. Most, however.

I also don't think that it's just Liberal's wet dreams coming true. I believe the Republicans had a few of those wet dreams in this stimulus package too.

Such as? No doubt there are some, but what are they?