• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
So let me get this right, if there was a stand alone bill to fund the park service, you would rather play politics and keep those people out of work.... Even though passing funding for them has nothing to do with Obamacare.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it would be stand alone. Something regarding ACA would be attached to it. The only reason they are doing this is in order to save some face.
 
dw914er said:
People want to fund the park service, as well as the other departments.. but why would anyone want to piecemeal a budget? How does that really help anything, other than potentially drag this minority-held stalemate even longer?
Click to expand...

As those who work for the park service how that would help. Or the other departments and agencies that could be funded. The entire government might not get funded for a while, but at least some departments would get funding and programs like wic will sill operate.

But instead, the senate and the house Demicrats are now telling individual agencies that their stance on the healthcare bill is more important then the work they do and the people they help.
 
dw914er said:
People want to fund the park service, as well as the other departments.. but why would anyone want to piecemeal a budget? How does that really help anything, other than potentially drag this minority-held stalemate even longer?
Click to expand...

The whole shutdown and debt ceiling is a hostage situation. Do what we want or the economy gets it. If a man sticks a gun at you and says give me all your money and you say no and then he says fine give me half your money and you say no, Mskis would have you believe that you are the one being unreasonable for not compromising.

Budgets simply can't be funded this way. The government functioning and upholding its duties and duly elected laws, all of them, is how government works. The whole premise behind the GOP position is that not funding and not raising the debt ceiling is bad, and that unless the democrats agree to things that the GOP has been unable to achieve through the democratic process, the GOP will make those bad things happen. You simply cannot reward hostage takers or the democratic process will no longer exist.

What skis and his fellow republicans are defending would set in motion constant crises in government. Democrats woukd threaten to blow up the economy if a republican president didn't do what they couldn't achieve in the democratic process. If, say, democrats refused to fund the government except for the park service unless the top tax rate was raised to 90%? Well, skis and his cohorts would rightly condemn the hostage taking excercise as both undemocratic and dangerous. I suppose this is where the cognitive bias comes into play with our friend here. He is simply unable to make the connection that since this would be an outrage if democrats did it it should be outrage that republicans are doing it. I'm starting to believe I've been too harsh on our friend here. His inability to think rationally deserves my sympathy rather than my scorn.
 
michaelskis said:
As those who work for the park service how that would help. Or the other departments and agencies that could be funded. The entire government might not get funded for a while, but at least some departments would get funding and programs like wic will sill operate.

But instead, the senate and the house Demicrats are now telling individual agencies that their stance on the healthcare bill is more important then the work they do and the people they help.
Click to expand...

Because this is a disingenuous position. There are the votes in the House to pass a clean CR. Who are the House Republicans to decide what agencies stay open or closed? We don't fund budgets in this country based on a popularity contest. As I have said time and time again in this thread, just because the EPA doesn't do the most glamorous work doesn't make their work any less important.

I don't understand why the GOP is so concerned with dismantling a properly passed law that has been found to be constitutional? This would be like if the democrats pitched a fit and refused to fund the government over their dislike of something like the Patriot Act. The only one who is responsible for this shutdown right now is John Boehner. If he would bring a clean bill to the House floor it would pass, the Senate would pass it, and the President would sign it. This shutdown could be over in two hours but John Boehner would rather drag this out in order to try to score some political points. I can't wait to hear the defense on this!
 
michaelskis said:
So let me get this right, if there was a stand alone bill to fund the park service, you would rather play politics and keep those people out of work.... Even though passing funding for them has nothing to do with Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Your pretend ignorance is tiresome.

You know quite well, that it is the Houses plan B strategy that accomplishes the exact same initial goal that did not work. It's not a secret and it is not sneaky smart. It is also not compromise.

The GOP does not want to fund the parks, they want to sell them off for pennies on the dollar for logging or to privatize them. Your pretend position is a sham.
The GOP does not care about kids with cancer. If they did, they would not have shut the government down to prevent people from getting ACA health care. Your pretend position is a lie
The GOP does not care about kids on the WIC program. You often state your adherence to the policies of your soulless leadership in trying to slash/defund that and similar policies.
The GOP does not care about putting food on poor peoples plate. You fully stand behind policies of slashing/defunding anything to help people with few resources.
The GOP does not care or want to support science. Good science makes the world more difficult for the Judeo/Christian/Islamic world view (they are the same religion with different stages of reform). The world is NOT 10,000 years old.
The GOP does not care about the environment. They would repeal over 100 years of environmental protection. They want the Cuyahoga river to burn again, kill thousands of people with breathing issues and kill every animal possible. Reference your belief that lead in your environment is ok.
The GOP does not care about childrens edgukashon. If they can't be taught by christian religious zealots, they should not be educated.
The GOP does not want government. Period. You have wrongly stated that all government is bad and the bigger the government gets the worse it gets. Statements that are demonstrably wrong on every level
etc....


You claim to be pro-life at every opportunity and argue that no public money should be used to fund something you disagree with. That behavior is called acting like a spoiled child. Each one of us here doesn't like something the government spends money on in one place or another but we don't insist or support trying to destroy the government or world economy over it. It is also called compromise and negotiation. Once a child enters this world, you don't give a rats ass about them or what happens to them. Not with any kind of basics, not food, housing, or education. By supporting your GOP leaders in helping to obfuscate the issues above, you help to sustain a situation that devalues human life and ACTIVELY works to harm it. Society OWES those children, ALL children, at least a shot at the opportunity to live a good life. By supporting several of the amendments made in this government shutdown by the House republicans, like the change to the ACA that would let ANY business person or business based on religious belief, decide insurance coverage for a defenseless employee. All your moral statements are not truly held beliefs. You know what that is called.

Why the last paragraph? You are worried about the parks. You are worried about the whiny Vets that might not get to see their stone slab. Bo Hooo! Do you care about those using the WIC program? Didn't think so. How about the SNAP program? Didn't think so. How about real programs the vets could actually use? Didn't think so. Bet you didn't hear about the $ 6 BILLION $ the GOP is trying to cut from the VA budget last Friday? Didn't think so. Your priorities are so out of wack it is no longer funny.

Using your argument, once all of these issues are passed one at a time, the ACA stands alone and you believe you can then kill it. You insult all of us. You are not sneaky smart and we are not that dumb. The House tried to fund the government without the ACA funding. It is what started the government shut down and we will not forget that fact. As long as the democratic party hangs tough It is not working and it will not work. Yet you attempt to argue it as if it is perfectly reasonable. It is not.

The votes are there to pass a clean CR. Now that makes sense. Then, like the DEM party has been asking for almost 6 months, the senate conference committee should sit down with the House conference committee and hammer out the reconciliation budget. It's called regular order. The continuing resolution would give them 6 weeks. The GOP house does not want to do this because it would mean compromise.

The House needs to stop the gimmicks and actually get to the table and work things out. Everyone agrees (70%) that the medical device tax is likely to be stripped out of the ACA. OK, it can go, but the ACA is clearly going to work, so if there is an issue, DEM's & GOP can FIX the issues. Killing it is not compromise. What don't you get about that? Its first grade. Oh, yeah. Playing dumb is the order of the day.


Maybe he is as clueless as he seems. Maybe he doesn't realize that singular short term spending authorizations is a tactic to get to the same point as the original defunding of the ACA the House passed. However, that is improbable. Seeing as he already admitted to trolling once today.
 
JNA said:
HEADLINE: Obama, Dems mock Indiana lawmaker's budget remark
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/03/obama-dems-mock-indiana-lawmakers-budget-remark/
Click to expand...

Textbook definition of acting like a child. Its like you not liking ice cream, seeing another kid getting ice cream, and screaming you want ice cream. Tough cookies, life isn't fair. This is something you learn in kindergarten. You would think the GOP would be for children's health and nutrition, since they are proving that for the most part they are no better than a 5 year old. I hope people will remember this in 2014, yet knowing the American people we will forget about these antics.
 
As of the time I write this, the GOP is completly leaving the defunding of the ACA by the roadside. They havn't mentioned it all day.

Tonight, some A-hole GOP member got up in front of a bunch of journalists and said "I have an idea to end the standoff. just don't tell anybody who I am". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/gop-sequester-entitlement_n_4039761.html

They cant manage to take down the ACA, so NOW they are thinking they can go after GRANDMA! Thats swell you idiots. Go after the hand that feeds. I bet that trial balloon drops like its made of lead. This "anonymous" sourcing has to stop.



Nice Quote:

"Sequester is a very blunt instrument," the GOP member said. "It's a pretty common view among Republicans that we've done way too much. So some of the spending can be restored. ... Then the president's going to get some of what he wants, for domestic initiatives, Head Start and whatever."



They are admitting they took to much money out of the economy, and now retirees are supposed to dig their sorry behinds out of trouble? I just can't imagine how the GOP can't tell how tone def they are? To some it up, Republican dirt bags are trying to push no health care for anybody,retirees get to much, the poor rich people are taxed to much, and workers get paid to well because of minimum wage. I would laugh at this but I am too busy picking my jaw up off the floor. It is all about face saving now. There is no argument about reducing debt or defunding the ACA. Its just pure face saving now. Or in the case of the GOP that would be the same as covering their buts. You would think old people would pop their heads out of their posteriors and realize the people they vote for are NOT on their side. That smell is called "DESPERATION" and the GOP should go clean it out of their shorts.

OH, and John Boehner signaled he would not default on the debt. That one is on hold though, as he is the most spineless speaker in ALL of our American history.

Message to Democratic leadership? Get a deal, but it had better be 98% of what we want, that will make it even for last year over the holidays when thats what Boehner got in his own words. Get a guaranteed budget with higher numbers than accepted in the House, an extension of the debt ceiling through January of 15, and give up the medical device tax and not 1 thing more.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
As of the time I write this, the GOP is completly leaving the defunding of the ACA by the roadside. They havn't mentioned it all day.

Tonight, some A-hole GOP member got up in front of a bunch of journalists and said "I have an idea to end the standoff. just don't tell anybody who I am". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/gop-sequester-entitlement_n_4039761.html

They cant manage to take down the ACA, so NOW they are thinking they can go after GRANDMA! Thats swell you idiots. Go after the hand that feeds. I bet that trial balloon drops like its made of lead. This "anonymous" sourcing has to stop.
Click to expand...

My hope is that some in the GOP are beginning to realize that the GOP leadership is bat sh*t crazy and would rather destroy their party for this false notion that if they compromise they lose. It is beginning to appear that many in the party are realizing that hitching their fortunes to Boehner is foolish and will end up with their asses getting booted out in '14. Boehner is spineless and has lost control of his party. If the end result wasn't an ongoing government shutdown and this constant governing by crisis, I would be standing by with my popcorn watching the tea party destroying the modern Republican party. Unless the GOP changes course very soon, they are going to watch themselves locked out for the next 10-15 years. I honestly think that if it wasn't for voter suppression and gerrymandering they would have been dead in 2012.
 
rcgplanner said:
My hope is that some in the GOP are beginning to realize that the GOP leadership is bat sh*t crazy and would rather destroy their party for this false notion that if they compromise they lose. It is beginning to appear that many in the party are realizing that hitching their fortunes to Boehner is foolish and will end up with their asses getting booted out in '14. Boehner is spineless and has lost control of his party. If the end result wasn't an ongoing government shutdown and this constant governing by crisis, I would be standing by with my popcorn watching the tea party destroying the modern Republican party. Unless the GOP changes course very soon, they are going to watch themselves locked out for the next 10-15 years. I honestly think that if it wasn't for voter suppression and gerrymandering they would have been dead in 2012.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if they aren't crazy, just have a different problem to handle.

Most of the Teas have the opinion of making the government smaller. It is a fair idea, I don't really agree entirely with it, but to say that a smaller government is bad is incorrect. It is all opinions after all. They're problem is that they are fresh and new and brought in with a certain mission and they just are willing to understand that politics is an imperfect game and you can't just make demands and get them. So whether or not their opinions are valid is irrelevant because they are acting ridiculous and counter to the political process.

The rest of the GOP knows this, but they also know that if they don't back this lunacy next year they're going to get serious primary challenges.

So in effect the Teas are holding the mainstream GOP hostage as well as the national political process.

I consider myself some-what right-leaning (at least by comparison to a lot of the folks on here), but this shit is ridiculous. I don't have too much money, but next year I intend to send campaign donations to swing districts against people who supported this nonsense of a shutdown and potential default.
 
There is a problem with splitting Teabaggers and "regular" GOP members. There is no way the Teabaggers could primary every single GOP congressman. If the teabaggers tried to primary that many congressman ~180, there wouldn't be enough money to effectively attack them all, so their message would fail. Result: Major Teabagger defeat.

Teabagger success in primarying what is thought of as a "normal" GOP congressman destroys the GOP as a national force. Result: Catastrophic Teabagger and GOP Defeat.


As a side note, that would be a great thing for Democrats because the majorities picked up nationwide would be astounding. Independents and a few anonymous GOP types, do not like the teabaggers.

This is why I say there is a problem determining a difference between the lot. This split sounds good but in reality it is only a difference in degree and not actual governing philosophy, tactics not actual strategy.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Your pretend ignorance is tiresome.

You know quite well, that it is the Houses plan B strategy that accomplishes the exact same initial goal that did not work. It's not a secret and it is not sneaky smart. It is also not compromise.

The GOP does not want to fund the parks, they want to sell them off for pennies on the dollar for logging or to privatize them. Your pretend position is a sham.
The GOP does not care about kids with cancer. If they did, they would not have shut the government down to prevent people from getting ACA health care. Your pretend position is a lie
The GOP does not care about kids on the WIC program. You often state your adherence to the policies of your soulless leadership in trying to slash/defund that and similar policies.
The GOP does not care about putting food on poor peoples plate. You fully stand behind policies of slashing/defunding anything to help people with few resources.
The GOP does not care or want to support science. Good science makes the world more difficult for the Judeo/Christian/Islamic world view (they are the same religion with different stages of reform). The world is NOT 10,000 years old.
The GOP does not care about the environment. They would repeal over 100 years of environmental protection. They want the Cuyahoga river to burn again, kill thousands of people with breathing issues and kill every animal possible. Reference your belief that lead in your environment is ok.
The GOP does not care about childrens edgukashon. If they can't be taught by christian religious zealots, they should not be educated.
The GOP does not want government. Period. You have wrongly stated that all government is bad and the bigger the government gets the worse it gets. Statements that are demonstrably wrong on every level
etc....


You claim to be pro-life at every opportunity and argue that no public money should be used to fund something you disagree with. That behavior is called acting like a spoiled child. Each one of us here doesn't like something the government spends money on in one place or another but we don't insist or support trying to destroy the government or world economy over it. It is also called compromise and negotiation. Once a child enters this world, you don't give a rats ass about them or what happens to them. Not with any kind of basics, not food, housing, or education. By supporting your GOP leaders in helping to obfuscate the issues above, you help to sustain a situation that devalues human life and ACTIVELY works to harm it. Society OWES those children, ALL children, at least a shot at the opportunity to live a good life. By supporting several of the amendments made in this government shutdown by the House republicans, like the change to the ACA that would let ANY business person or business based on religious belief, decide insurance coverage for a defenseless employee. All your moral statements are not truly held beliefs. You know what that is called.

Why the last paragraph? You are worried about the parks. You are worried about the whiny Vets that might not get to see their stone slab. Bo Hooo! Do you care about those using the WIC program? Didn't think so. How about the SNAP program? Didn't think so. How about real programs the vets could actually use? Didn't think so. Bet you didn't hear about the $ 6 BILLION $ the GOP is trying to cut from the VA budget last Friday? Didn't think so. Your priorities are so out of wack it is no longer funny.

Using your argument, once all of these issues are passed one at a time, the ACA stands alone and you believe you can then kill it. You insult all of us. You are not sneaky smart and we are not that dumb. The House tried to fund the government without the ACA funding. It is what started the government shut down and we will not forget that fact. As long as the democratic party hangs tough It is not working and it will not work. Yet you attempt to argue it as if it is perfectly reasonable. It is not.

The votes are there to pass a clean CR. Now that makes sense. Then, like the DEM party has been asking for almost 6 months, the senate conference committee should sit down with the House conference committee and hammer out the reconciliation budget. It's called regular order. The continuing resolution would give them 6 weeks. The GOP house does not want to do this because it would mean compromise.

The House needs to stop the gimmicks and actually get to the table and work things out. Everyone agrees (70%) that the medical device tax is likely to be stripped out of the ACA. OK, it can go, but the ACA is clearly going to work, so if there is an issue, DEM's & GOP can FIX the issues. Killing it is not compromise. What don't you get about that? Its first grade. Oh, yeah. Playing dumb is the order of the day.


Maybe he is as clueless as he seems. Maybe he doesn't realize that singular short term spending authorizations is a tactic to get to the same point as the original defunding of the ACA the House passed. However, that is improbable. Seeing as he already admitted to trolling once today.
Click to expand...


The GOP is a bunch of idiots and Reid has said that the medical device tax will stay. I don't care what the GOP does or does not believe... They are almost as bad as the democrats. Once again, you keep saying You... Last I checked, I am not a member of congress.

I would also love for someone to explain who will be paying for all of this?

Has the republicans proposed independent funding bills? Yes. But the democrats rather run this country into the ground and refuse to compromise on anything. You seem to be good with that idea which is sad.
 
Everything is effed. Obama is an unmitigated disaster. The GOP congress might be worse. Might be time to move to Canada, if they let me in.
 
The votes are there to raise the debt ceiling, Boehner says it would be disasterous for our economy and the national security of our country if we dont raise the debt ceiling, and he acknowledges the GOP and Obama both have equal reason to want to raise the debt ceiling and prevent the damage to America but Boehner also says he wont allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling unless obama gives the republicans something but he doesnt know exactly what he wants. Wow.

And this is Obama's fault and he hates America because he is refusing to give the republican party what they want so they wont crash the economy even though they don't even know what they want. Wow.
 
imaplanner said:
The votes are there to raise the debt ceiling, Boehner says it would be disasterous for our economy and the national security of our country if we dont raise the debt ceiling, and he acknowledges the GOP and Obama both have equal reason to want to raise the debt ceiling and prevent the damage to America but Boehner also says he wont allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling unless obama gives the republicans something but he doesnt know exactly what he wants. Wow.

And this is Obama's fault and he hates America because he is refusing to give the republican party what they want so they wont crash the economy even though they don't even know what they want. Wow.
Click to expand...

The republicans are idiots if they raise the debt limit. It is like increasing the blood alcohol level limit to deal with drunk driving. Maybe they should cut spending to pay the debts... Not borrow from MasterCard to pay visa.
 
michaelskis said:
The republicans are idiots if they raise the debt limit. It is like increasing the blood alcohol level limit to deal with drunk driving. Maybe they should cut spending to pay the debts... Not borrow from MasterCard to pay visa.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what the debt limit is? It doesn't increase our federal debt. It allows us to pay our existing debts. You know this though, because we talked about this last time the debt limit was used as a political dagger in 2011. Cutting spending is fine, but the debt limit isn't the place to argue over this. We already lost our perfect credit standing because the Republicans tried to use the limit as a dagger, let's not go through this exercise again with this fragile economy.

Are you content to go back into a recession? Interest rates will rise, the value of the dollar will fall. You would rather see this, than pay our outstanding debts? Why do you feel it appropriate to have federal employees and the the elderly, and those on welfare, take the brunt of your anger? Why not just work harder to get your message across.

If democracy works then republicans should be getting big gains in the elections of 2014 since their ideas are so much better. Once they get those they can then vote to overturn all these laws they don't support. Until then, they should work to get their ideas across. They should blame the democrats for things they don't like, but not obstruct the entire government process because they think they are right.

Ps. Since Mskis likes polls...
In the Polls: Republican Popularity Falls as Blame Rises
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...-popularity-falls-as-blame-rises.html/?ref=YF
 
Hink said:
Do you understand what the debt limit is? It doesn't increase our federal debt. It allows us to pay our existing debts. You know this though, because we talked about this last time the debt limit was used as a political dagger in 2011. Cutting spending is fine, but the debt limit isn't the place to argue over this. We already lost our perfect credit standing because the Republicans tried to use the limit as a dagger, let's not go through this exercise again with this fragile economy.

Are you content to go back into a recession? Interest rates will rise, the value of the dollar will fall. You would rather see this, than pay our outstanding debts? Why do you feel it appropriate to have federal employees and the the elderly, and those on welfare, take the brunt of your anger? Why not just work harder to get your message across.

If democracy works then republicans should be getting big gains in the elections of 2014 since their ideas are so much better. Once they get those they can then vote to overturn all these laws they don't support. Until then, they should work to get their ideas across. They should blame the democrats for things they don't like, but not obstruct the entire government process because they think they are right.

Ps. Since Mskis likes polls...
In the Polls: Republican Popularity Falls as Blame Rises
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...-popularity-falls-as-blame-rises.html/?ref=YF
Click to expand...

Ok, can you explain to me how increasing the debt limit will not result in more borrowing? The US Treasury says that it will. Link (They also sound like a democrat political add)

In the answer if I want to go back to the resession... No. But can you honestly tell me that the government can't cut funding to cover its debts?

In regards to the poll, you're right... The media has been doing a great job of selling it as the republicans fault for the shut down and the majority of people are blaming the republicans now.

On a side and political note... The Mesa School is run by a bunch of idiots who are terrified of guns... To the point where a SWAT officer was asked not to wear his uniform or gun when dropping his daughter off to school, on his way to work. This is a prime example of stupid people running schools. Link
 
michaelskis said:
Ok, can you explain to me how increasing the debt limit will not result in more borrowing? The US Treasury says that it will. Link (They also sound like a democrat political add)
Click to expand...

Sure. Because the debt limit is covering existing expenses. If we were to pass a budget or implement policies (i.e. ACA) that are shown to reduce costs, we might not have to raise the debt limit in the future. Unfortunately, the costs that are being covered have already been promised. It is more like buying things on a credit card, and then saying, no I stopped going out to dinner so I shouldn't have to pay for the dinners I racked up on the credit card.

You need to pay your debts because you owe them. Getting our house in order is important, and I agree with you that we need to do. It shouldn't be used though as a reason to not raise the debt limit.

michaelskis said:
In the answer if I want to go back to the resession... No. But can you honestly tell me that the government can't cut funding to cover its debts?
Click to expand...

I can't tell you that, sorry. We owe a lot of money, which is bad for our country. I agree with you that we need to look at our policies and see what we can do to reduce expenses. Again, that has nothing to do with the debt ceiling though.


michaelskis said:
In regards to the poll, you're right... The media has been doing a great job of selling it as the republicans fault for the shut down and the majority of people are blaming the republicans now.
Click to expand...

So the polls you cite are then just Fox News doing a good job of selling the end of the world? Or do only some polls count?
 
Hink said:
Do you understand what the debt limit is? It doesn't increase our federal debt. It allows us to pay our existing debts. You know this though, because we talked about this last time the debt limit was used as a political dagger in 2011. Cutting spending is fine, but the debt limit isn't the place to argue over this. We already lost our perfect credit standing because the Republicans tried to use the limit as a dagger, let's not go through this exercise again with this fragile economy.

Are you content to go back into a recession? Interest rates will rise, the value of the dollar will fall. You would rather see this, than pay our outstanding debts? Why do you feel it appropriate to have federal employees and the the elderly, and those on welfare, take the brunt of your anger? Why not just work harder to get your message across.

If democracy works then republicans should be getting big gains in the elections of 2014 since their ideas are so much better. Once they get those they can then vote to overturn all these laws they don't support. Until then, they should work to get their ideas across. They should blame the democrats for things they don't like, but not obstruct the entire government process because they think they are right.

Ps. Since Mskis likes polls...
In the Polls: Republican Popularity Falls as Blame Rises
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...-popularity-falls-as-blame-rises.html/?ref=YF
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any actual economists who don't agree it will be bad and could be worse than the 2008 recession. It will result in billions more in increased interest payments and lots of job losses at a minimum. Worst case could be that other countries move away from the dollar standard, which would absolutely destroy our country.

The new talking point from the mskis crowd seems to be that the debt ceiling is not important and we wont vote to raise it but that its Obama's fault for not raising it and for whatever damage is caused. These people are going to willfully destroy our economy and our global standing because they are throwing a tantrum over President Obama being re-elected. They are going to willfully destroy our economy and they don't even know what they are asking for ransom even. It's pretty damn amazing. They are doing more damage to America than actual terrorists ever could have hoped. And for what, even they can't answer what they want in exchange for not destroying America. This really is incredible.
 
Hink said:
Sure. Because the debt limit is covering existing expenses. If we were to pass a budget or implement policies (i.e. ACA) that are shown to reduce costs, we might not have to raise the debt limit in the future. Unfortunately, the costs that are being covered have already been promised. It is more like buying things on a credit card, and then saying, no I stopped going out to dinner so I shouldn't have to pay for the dinners I racked up on the credit card.

You need to pay your debts because you owe them. Getting our house in order is important, and I agree with you that we need to do. It shouldn't be used though as a reason to not raise the debt limit.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% that we need to pay our debts. But to borrow money to pay our debts is the definition of stupid. It is like slitting your wrist to give yourself a blood transfusion. In your credit card/ dinner example, I would drop cable, cut the gym membership, start walking more and driving less, turn the heat down a few degrees in the winter, and do a ton of other things to pay off that debt... but the US is taking out a new credit card to pay off the old ones. What happens when it comes time to pay off the new one?

Hink said:
I can't tell you that, sorry. We owe a lot of money, which is bad for our country. I agree with you that we need to look at our policies and see what we can do to reduce expenses. Again, that has nothing to do with the debt ceiling though.
Click to expand...
We owe an insane amount of money and things are not going to get any better. It is not just the Democrats fault... the Republicans are just as much to blame as the Dems. But to borrow more money to pay for the bast instead of cutting spending is not the right way to go about it.

Hink said:
So the polls you cite are then just Fox News doing a good job of selling the end of the world? Or do only some polls count?
Click to expand...
This poll counts just as much as every poll that I post... and I don't question the results. But can you show me any place in the media that is not biased? Most of them are liberal biased and focus more on hateful tea party members instead of just giving the whole truth and staying what is really in each of the bills that the House sent to the Senate.


imaplanner said:
I have yet to see any actual economists who don't agree it will be bad and could be worse than the 2008 recession. It will result in billions more in increased interest payments and lots of job losses at a minimum. Worst case could be that other countries move away from the dollar standard, which would absolutely destroy our country.

The new talking point from the mskis crowd seems to be that the debt ceiling is not important and we wont vote to raise it but that its Obama's fault for not raising it and for whatever damage is caused. These people are going to willfully destroy our economy and our global standing because they are throwing a tantrum over President Obama being re-elected. They are going to willfully destroy our economy and they don't even know what they are asking for ransom even. It's pretty damn amazing. They are doing more damage to America than actual terrorists ever could have hoped. And for what, even they can't answer what they want in exchange for not destroying America. This really is incredible.
Click to expand...

I agree, that if we are not able to repay out payments, it would be horrible and our current economic system would likely collapse causing global repercussions. But I have yet to hear anyone from either party suggest that we should just default on our debts. I have heard cut spending, I have heard raise the debt ceiling, but I have yet to hear "don't pay our debts". (And you say I make stuff up! Calm down there chicken little)

I will go on record and say that we should not raise the debt ceiling and that we should cut costs to cover our current bills. Will this result in some hard times and come cut programs... absolutely. If you are so worried about the freeloaders in some communities, why don't you just give 50% of your income to them. Oh, wait, because you have bills and expenses too.

As for those who want to destroy the country, the House has provided several bills to the senate that would have kept the government running and they are willing to raise the debt ceiling with conditions... Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have told him that (in essence) they rather see the county burn than break from the all or nothing mentality. Now which party is causing the damage?
 
michaelskis said:
I agree 100% that we need to pay our debts. But to borrow money to pay our debts is the definition of stupid. It is like slitting your wrist to give yourself a blood transfusion. In your credit card/ dinner example, I would drop cable, cut the gym membership, start walking more and driving less, turn the heat down a few degrees in the winter, and do a ton of other things to pay off that debt... but the US is taking out a new credit card to pay off the old ones. What happens when it comes time to pay off the new one?
Click to expand...

In you analogy, you are cutting future spending in order to pay off debts you have already incurred. Life, and the credit markets, just don't work that way. If you have a bill that is due today, driving fewer miles or turning down the heat so that those bills will be lower next month will not put more money in your pocket today.

I agree that the government should take a serious look at cutting future spending, but congress has an obligation to pay off the bills that congress has already authorized and tallied up.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
In you analogy, you are cutting future spending in order to pay off debts you have already incurred. Life, and the credit markets, just don't work that way. If you have a bill that is due today, driving fewer miles or turning down the heat so that those bills will be lower next month will not put more money in your pocket today.

I agree that the government should take a serious look at cutting future spending, but congress has an obligation to pay off the bills that congress has already authorized and tallied up.
Click to expand...

I am talking about cutting current spending too... not just future. Most of us have a month to month billing system for quite a few things (like cable, phone, gym memberships) and even budgets for weekly expenses. It does not work on a weekly example for the Federal Government, but there is money earmarked that needs to be cut so it is freed up today to cover those bills.

But then again asking most politicians to stop spending is like asking a fish to walk across a desert.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
In you analogy, you are cutting future spending in order to pay off debts you have already incurred. Life, and the credit markets, just don't work that way. If you have a bill that is due today, driving fewer miles or turning down the heat so that those bills will be lower next month will not put more money in your pocket today.

I agree that the government should take a serious look at cutting future spending, but congress has an obligation to pay off the bills that congress has already authorized and tallied up.
Click to expand...

michaelskis said:
I am talking about cutting current spending too... not just future. Most of us have a month to month billing system for quite a few things (like cable, phone, gym memberships) and even budgets for weekly expenses. It does not work on a weekly example for the Federal Government, but there is money earmarked that needs to be cut so it is freed up today to cover those bills.

But then again asking most politicians to stop spending is like asking a fish to walk across a desert.
Click to expand...

As much as people want the federal government (or any government) budget to operate as one would operate a household budget, it just doesn't work that way.

Governments are not businesses and they are not households. There are many similarities, but they are not the same.

This is one of the great fallacies of the tea party movement.
 
btrage said:
As much as people want the federal government (or any government) budget to operate as one would operate a household budget, it just doesn't work that way.

Governments are not businesses and they are not households. There are many similarities, but they are not the same.

This is one of the great fallacies of the tea party movement.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend that it is the same... but it is the easiest way to provide an explanation that most people will understand.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't pretend that it is the same... but it is the easiest way to provide an explanation that most people will understand.
Click to expand...

It is pretend. Simplifying the government finances down to that of a business or individual household is a gimmick used to make people think that government is bad and doesn't work by conflating the goals of the three. That gimmick is dangerous and should not be propagated.

Explain it right, and enough people will understand that family finances, business finances, and government finances all work to acheive separate and equally responsible goals.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
It is pretend. Simplifying the government finances down to that of a business or individual household is a gimmick used to make people think that government is bad and doesn't work by conflating the goals of the three. That gimmick is dangerous and should not be propagated.

Explain it right, and enough people will understand that family finances, business finances, and government finances all work to acheive separate and equally responsible goals.
Click to expand...

OK, the Federal Government does not understand how run a country efficiently so they progressively spend more money that they have, thus resulting in a various shell games and using quantitative easing as an effort to create more money while still delaying domestic inflation.

They have a various expenditures that are due, some to pay for things already purchased, some to pay for upcoming infrastructure, and some to pay on debt. They need to tell those who are expecting pre-payment for expenditures that it will not get funding. Will this cause a hardship for some, yes. Then they need to prioritize expenditures that for goods and services already received and contact each of them to set up a delayed payment plan. Will this be bad, yes. The only thing that should get priority funding is for debts that we would otherwise default on.

The sequester should have turned of the tap for new spending... but for some reason it kept going. I hate to use this analogy, but they need to take a good look at real operational needs and shut down everything else until they can start running surplus budgets to start paying down the debt. For the 2013 year, $415,688,781,248.40 goes to paying interest.
 
In 1971 we moved off the gold standard to a fiat currency. We continued deficit spending. You can never, ever, borrow money to pay a debt be it a personal credit card or a nation. Unless this country changes the way it does business, which right now is a giant Ponzi scheme, the dollar will eventually fail.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't pretend that it is the same... but it is the easiest way to provide an explanation that most people will understand.
Click to expand...

A better analogy would be that as the head of a household, my budget directly impacts several other households and many, many individuals. One day, I realize that my spending is getting out of control and that I will very shortly not be able to make a mortgage payment. I make the decision to cut back my spending in many ways, and develop a plan that will put me back on the path of a balanced budget with increased savings. However, I still have this pesky mortgage payment that I currently do not have the money for. I could choose not to make the mortgage payment, which could have horrible consequences to my credit score and severely restrict the positive influences that I have on several households and many individuals.

Or, I could make the decision to go deeper in debt on one of my credit cards and make the mortgage payment, knowing that my positive influence over the several households and many individuals will continue, and that I have developed a plan to return me to a balanced budget and increased savings.

I make the decision to go a little bit deeper in debt and make the payments that I am responsible for. I know that defaulting on my debt payments would be irresponsible and not morally correct.
 
Mastiff said:
In 1971 we moved off the gold standard to a fiat currency. We continued deficit spending. You can never, ever, borrow money to pay a debt be it a personal credit card or a nation. Unless this country changes the way it does business, which right now is a giant Ponzi scheme, the dollar will eventually fail.
Click to expand...

Well said and I am happy to hear that I am not the only one who thinks that borrowing to pay off debt is bad for the country.

btrage said:
A better analogy would be that as the head of a household, my budget directly impacts several other households and many, many individuals. One day, I realize that my spending is getting out of control and that I will very shortly not be able to make a mortgage payment. I make the decision to cut back my spending in many ways, and develop a plan that will put me back on the path of a balanced budget with increased savings. However, I still have this pesky mortgage payment that I currently do not have the money for. I could choose not to make the mortgage payment, which could have horrible consequences to my credit score and severely restrict the positive influences that I have on several households and many individuals.

Or, I could make the decision to go deeper in debt on one of my credit cards and make the mortgage payment, knowing that my positive influence over the several households and many individuals will continue, and that I have developed a plan to return me to a balanced budget and increased savings.

I make the decision to go a little bit deeper in debt and make the payments that I am responsible for. I know that defaulting on my debt payments would be irresponsible and not morally correct.
Click to expand...

Irresponsible is getting into that situation over and over and over again. If a person can't afford mortgage payments for one house, they should not own multiple houses. As an example, I was laid off because of economic conditions a few years ago and everyone else had more seniority than I did. They could not afford to keep me on staff so they let me go. I would have done the same thing if I was in my bosses position.

I think it is comical to think that you can expect a surplus budget with this administration unless they raise the tax rates to ridiculous amounts. (the last administration was no better)
 
michaelskis said:
Well said and I am happy to hear that I am not the only one who thinks that borrowing to pay off debt is bad for the country.



Irresponsible is getting into that situation over and over and over again. If a person can't afford mortgage payments for one house, they should not own multiple houses. As an example, I was laid off because of economic conditions a few years ago and everyone else had more seniority than I did. They could not afford to keep me on staff so they let me go. I would have done the same thing if I was in my bosses position.

I think it is comical to think that you can expect a surplus budget with this administration unless they raise the tax rates to ridiculous amounts. (the last administration was no better)
Click to expand...

I was just trying to give you a more direct analogy between the federal government and a household to back up my statement that they are different animals.

I wasn't trying to argue that borrowing to pay a debt is a good thing. Just because someone can't pay a bill doesn't make them irresponsible. That's a horrible thing to think.
 
btrage said:
I was just trying to give you a more direct analogy between the federal government and a household to back up my statement that they are different animals.

I wasn't trying to argue that borrowing to pay a debt is a good thing. Just because someone can't pay a bill doesn't make them irresponsible. That's a horrible thing to think.
Click to expand...

I agree that if it happens on a rare occasion, I agree... but when it happens over and over and over again, that is without question irresponsible... or the federal government. There have been times in my life when I could not pay a bill. But instead of going deeper into debt I ate ramen noodles instead of going to the restaurants, rode my bike instead of driving my truck, and cut my spending as part of a long term budget to prevent it from happening again. I did not go out to get line of credit.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree that if it happens on a rare occasion, I agree... but when it happens over and over and over again, that is without question irresponsible... or the federal government. There have been times in my life when I could not pay a bill. But instead of going deeper into debt I ate ramen noodles instead of going to the restaurants, rode my bike instead of driving my truck, and cut my spending as part of a long term budget to prevent it from happening again. I did not go out to get line of credit.
Click to expand...

But you did pay the bills that were due correct? I'm not trying to argue that deficit spending is a good long term economic policy, it clearly isn't. But not paying the bills that are already due in order to prove a political point is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I would be perfectly happy if the White House and Congress could agree on a process by which to develop a balanced budget. I'm hopeful that they can do this. It's one of the things that came out of the 1995 shutdown. But to use the threat of the government defaulting on its debt, simply to make a politic point (the Affordable Care Act), is irresponsible and dangerous.
 
michaelskis said:
Well said and I am happy to hear that I am not the only one who thinks that borrowing to pay off debt is bad for the country.



Irresponsible is getting into that situation over and over and over again. If a person can't afford mortgage payments for one house, they should not own multiple houses. As an example, I was laid off because of economic conditions a few years ago and everyone else had more seniority than I did. They could not afford to keep me on staff so they let me go. I would have done the same thing if I was in my bosses position.

I think it is comical to think that you can expect a surplus budget with this administration unless they raise the tax rates to ridiculous amounts. (the last administration was no better)
Click to expand...


On the contrary. We know full well we can cover our debt and be on the road to a balanced budget, if we go back to the tax rates under bill clinton. Add 1% or 2% for the unpaid for wars. Done. The belief the rates would be out of control is a silly talking point and flat out false.

Talking about bloated household budgets. Who do you know that spends 18% of total budget and 57% of their discretionary funding on guns and bullets.... EVERY PAYCHECK! But hey, your budget analogies don't work because they are silly. Always want to cut social programs (noodles) but can't touch the tax rates (home income) and you cant stop buying guns and bullets.

If everything were truly on the table, we could get somewhere. Social Security is easy to fix. The post office issues are easy to fix. Better and fair trade agreements that provide good jobs here. We can have health care for everyone AND a strong defense, but increasing revenue has to be part of it. This internecine fighting will go on until there is agreement on tinkering with everything including revenue increases and tinkering with existing social rights to services.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree that if it happens on a rare occasion, I agree... but when it happens over and over and over again, that is without question irresponsible... or the federal government. There have been times in my life when I could not pay a bill. But instead of going deeper into debt I ate ramen noodles instead of going to the restaurants, rode my bike instead of driving my truck, and cut my spending as part of a long term budget to prevent it from happening again. I did not go out to get line of credit.
Click to expand...

Public finance is not like personal finance.

But it is useful for some to pretend it is so and tell their viewers/listeners/readers that.
 
I miss Michelle Bachmann. I wish she would run for office again...

Of Course Michele Bachmann Believes the End Times Are Here
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...e-bachmann-believes-end-times-are-here/70275/

"[the U.S.'s funding of al Qaeda in Syria] happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history. Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand. When we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; these days would be as the days of Noah.”
Click to expand...

Why not try and make money off of the hysteria that you helped create? Add in Biblical end times, and you have a win!
 
The comparison of the federal budget to a household one does not really work for me. But it's worth noting that every household that has a mortgage or a car loan or student loans or credit card debt is operating under similar principles to the fed government. If we only spent money that is actually in the coffers we would never be able to do any large public works projects like roads or other infrastructure. Should we be diligent in minimizing waste? Of course. But we would still need to borrow money now to invest in developments now if we expect to enjoy larger returns in the future.
 
I have been busy for the past few days... so I will try to catch up. First, invoking the Militia act of 1792 is a load of crap. It was not enforced nor intended to be enforced, was limited by sex, age, and ability, and had to undergo several different amendments before that section was repealed.

Secondly, I would like to know when Obama decided that raising the debt ceiling was no longer irresponsible and unpatriotic. Or was that just because Bush was a republican?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydZTHPkOnvE

Third, there is an apparent park ranger who who has stated that his supervisors want them to make the shutdown as painful as possible. I don't put 100% faith in this, but based on how they want to shut down everything, including attractions not owned by the federal government, it would makes sense if he was telling the truth (Link)

Forth, I would still love for someone to explain how posting security guards at open air monuments to keep people out is less expensive than posting them to keep people under control.

Finally, I still find it to be a sad state of affairs when the senate will not even entertain anything other than an all or nothing approach, and our President tells the Speaker that he will only negotiate after the government is reopened.


(Edit... I need to add that I think Michele Bachman forgot her tinfoil hat. This might progress into the darkest days, but it is far from the end times.
 
michaelskis said:
I .


Forth, I would still love for someone to explain how posting security guards at open air monuments to keep people out is less expensive than posting them to keep people under control.
..
Click to expand...

Keeping people under control is only one aspect of what is needed to operate public spaces. Liability insurance policies require specific maintenance and other standards to be met to remain in effect. Again, if you had any experience in public management you would know this.

But I want to ask you something skis. Forget for a minute how president Obama and the democrats hate America. Congress is not providing the funding for parks. That means there is not much money for parks. So now how can it be that the good people at the NPS are spending more money now than they do when they are fully funded? This is your assertion, and you made this on the other thread also, please explain how you arrive here.
 
michaelskis said:
Forth, I would still love for someone to explain how posting security guards at open air monuments to keep people out is less expensive than posting them to keep people under control.


(Edit... I need to add that I think Michele Bachman forgot her tinfoil hat. This might progress into the darkest days, but it is far from the end times.
Click to expand...

<Sigh>Again, it gets back to liability, safety and security issues. Let's not forget the spurious,feeble, and convoluted attempt at logic regarding this issue that was made previously.:r:
 
imaplanner said:
But I want to ask you something skis. Forget for a minute how president Obama and the democrats hate America. Congress is not providing the funding for parks. That means there is not much money for parks. So now how can it be that the good people at the NPS are spending more money now than they do when they are fully funded? This is your assertion, and you made this on the other thread also, please explain how you arrive here.
Click to expand...

There are several assumptions here. There are cases where it makes sense to close the doors to cut the costs, namely at locations where there are physical doors to close such as all the indoor venues. The venues that don't make sense to me is the outdoor venues what normally don't have much if any guard or presence... such as the national mall or the Lincoln Memorial.

As for the closing and funding... it is the Sentate who is refusing to fund them. The House even passed a bill to fund parks but the Senate won't even take it up. LINK
 
michaelskis said:
I

Finally, I still find it to be a sad state of affairs when the senate will not even entertain anything other than an all or nothing approach, and our President tells the Speaker that he will only negotiate after the government is reopened.
Click to expand...

No negotiating with extortionists or terrists, Period. That is what is happening now, and the losing party is having a sadz, thrashing about for play, dishonestly. They shut down the gubmint they hate on purpose, for extortion purposes. Tough rox. No negotiatin' with terrists.

michaelskis said:
normally don't have much if any guard or presence... such as the national mall or the Lincoln Memorial.
Click to expand...

Arab-funded Faux "News" is getting a lot of mileage out of that disingenuous coverage, for sure. I bet the gun manufacturers are seeing an uptick in sales from coverage like that as well.
 
michaelskis said:
There are several assumptions here. There are cases where it makes sense to close the doors to cut the costs, namely at locations where there are physical doors to close such as all the indoor venues. The venues that don't make sense to me is the outdoor venues what normally don't have much if any guard or presence... such as the national mall or the Lincoln Memorial.

]
Click to expand...

I don't really understand how this answers the question about how the park service is somehow able to spend more money while shutdown then when operating.

But is your concern only the national mall? How many guards do they have there? One? 100? Do you know? There are lots of open air venues. Most park service run areas are actually parks! And they cost lots of money to run.

Think about this for a minute. With no maintenance people and no risk managers, how should they be deciding what is okay for people t be allowed in and what is not okay? I'm going to describe a typical situation for our local parks people. They check out our parks every day for safety. If they see a tree limb that might be dangerous but the arborist and/or tree maintenance guy is busy at another park. They will shut down the park or close off the area of the tree until it can be dealt with. If there was no funding for someone to assess safety, and no funding for maintenance, they most certainly would have to close the whole park down. It's not just trees. There are a lot of hazards in open air venues. Without enough rangers and other workers they also run the risk of vandalism of parks- including the memorials. Which part of this are you having difficulty with? I totally understand that it is so much easier to just blame democrats and how they hates veterans and kids with cancer and want to harm Americans because they are the evil.

I'd like you to forget about how the democrats hate America and put yourself in the position of a park manager for a minute. You have no funding for maintenance, for routine patrols, for guides, there are possible hazards in the parks that can't be dealt with, there is no rescue personel available and you also have treasured national resources that need to be protected. What would you do?
 
ColoGI said:
No negotiating with extortionists or terrists, Period. That is what is happening now, and the losing party is having a sadz, thrashing about for play, dishonestly. They shut down the gubmint they hate on purpose, for extortion purposes. Tough rox. No negotiatin' with terrists.
Click to expand...

So the republicans in the House of Representatives are terrorists? Stupid maybe... but terrorists is a bit of a reach. I also find it interesting that the Senate Majority Leader prevented any amendments to the revised CR proposal unless he made them. This prevented any Republicans from making any amendments, which might have kept the Government open.

imaplanner said:
I don't really understand how this answers the question about how the park service is somehow able to spend more money while shutdown then when operating.

But is your concern only the national mall? How many guards do they have there? One? 100? Do you know? There are lots of open air venues. Most park service run areas are actually parks! And they cost lots of money to run.

Think about this for a minute. With no maintenance people and no risk managers, how should they be deciding what is okay for people t be allowed in and what is not okay? I'm going to describe a typical situation for our local parks people. They check out our parks every day for safety. If they see a tree limb that might be dangerous but the arborist and/or tree maintenance guy is busy at another park. They will shut down the park or close off the area of the tree until it can be dealt with. If there was no funding for someone to assess safety, and no funding for maintenance, they most certainly would have to close the whole park down. It's not just trees. There are a lot of hazards in open air venues. Without enough rangers and other workers they also run the risk of vandalism of parks- including the memorials. Which part of this are you having difficulty with? I totally understand that it is so much easier to just blame democrats and how they hates veterans and kids with cancer and want to harm Americans because they are the evil.

I'd like you to forget about how the democrats hate America and put yourself in the position of a park manager for a minute. You have no funding for maintenance, for routine patrols, for guides, there are possible hazards in the parks that can't be dealt with, there is no rescue personel available and you also have treasured national resources that need to be protected. What would you do?
Click to expand...

If each park has it's own park manager, then there is something very wrong with the system. Secondly, I would find it surprising if they paid the security guard standing watch to keep people from going over the barrier less than they pay the guy to pick up the garbage and mow the lawn. Can you explain to me how what would save money by paying a guard more than it would cost to pay someone to mow the lawn once every two weeks and pick up the garbage on a daily basis? As for the comment about tree safety, what next are you going to mention worrying about the bee keeper who might need to go and remove a nest, or the exterminator who needs to deal with that pesky ground hog.

If there is no funding for maintenance, where is the funding for security coming from. Additionally, the as I posted above, the House of Representatives voted to fund the National Park System... it was the Senate that refused to take up the bill. How is the closed parks republicans fault again?
 
michaelskis said:
So the republicans in the House of Representatives are terrorists? Stupid maybe... but terrorists is a bit of a reach. I also find it interesting that the Senate Majority Leader prevented any amendments to the revised CR proposal unless he made them. This prevented any Republicans from making any amendments, which might have kept the Government open.



If each park has it's own park manager, then there is something very wrong with the system. Secondly, I would find it surprising if they paid the security guard standing watch to keep people from going over the barrier less than they pay the guy to pick up the garbage and mow the lawn. Can you explain to me how what would save money by paying a guard more than it would cost to pay someone to mow the lawn once every two weeks and pick up the garbage on a daily basis? As for the comment about tree safety, what next are you going to mention worrying about the bee keeper who might need to go and remove a nest, or the exterminator who needs to deal with that pesky ground hog.

If there is no funding for maintenance, where is the funding for security coming from. Additionally, the as I posted above, the House of Representatives voted to fund the National Park System... it was the Senate that refused to take up the bill. How is the closed parks republicans fault again?
Click to expand...

It is not about the "actual" costs. It is an issue about "potential" costs, if liability issues occur.

If the federal lands are not closed, then someone could go on them, hurt themselves or hurt others, and the federal government could potentially be sued because it did not take steps to secure the premises.

Do I like the idea of federal property being closed to the public? No, it totally sucks. Do I understand the rationale for why it is being done? Yes, I absolutely do. I believe I speak for the silent majority in this country on this topic, in that I can respect both sides of the argument and understand why it is being done, while you appear to speak nothing but political talking points that I hear on Fox News and see on Facebook.
 
btrage said:
It is not about the "actual" costs. It is an issue about "potential" costs, if liability issues occur.

If the federal lands are not closed, then someone could go on them, hurt themselves or hurt others, and the federal government could potentially be sued because it did not take steps to secure the premises.

Do I like the idea of federal property being closed to the public? No, it totally sucks. Do I understand the rationale for why it is being done? Yes, I absolutely do. I believe I speak for the silent majority in this country on this topic, in that I can respect both sides of the argument and understand why it is being done, while you appear to speak nothing but political talking points that I hear on Fox News and see on Facebook.
Click to expand...

So how is it more dangerous if they opted to pay a maintenance person less to keep it open than if they paid a guard to keep it closed? That would logically address potential and actual cost issues. After all, the funding for the guard is coming from someplace.

I am still waiting for an answer regarding why the Senate is choosing to keep the parks closed, refusing to fund Medical Research, and the operations in DC.
 
michaelskis said:
So the republicans in the House of Representatives are terrorists? Stupid maybe... but terrorists is a bit of a reach. I also find it interesting that the Senate Majority Leader prevented any amendments to the revised CR proposal unless he made them. This prevented any Republicans from making any amendments, which might have kept the Government open.



If each park has it's own park manager, then there is something very wrong with the system. Secondly, I would find it surprising if they paid the security guard standing watch to keep people from going over the barrier less than they pay the guy to pick up the garbage and mow the lawn. Can you explain to me how what would save money by paying a guard more than it would cost to pay someone to mow the lawn once every two weeks and pick up the garbage on a daily basis? As for the comment about tree safety, what next are you going to mention worrying about the bee keeper who might need to go and remove a nest, or the exterminator who needs to deal with that pesky ground hog.

If there is no funding for maintenance, where is the funding for security coming from. Additionally, the as I posted above, the House of Representatives voted to fund the National Park System... it was the Senate that refused to take up the bill. How is the closed parks republicans fault again?
Click to expand...

In my last couple posts I specifically have been trying to leave the blame out of it. Obviously you and I place the blame on the shitdown differently. I was just trying to get you to understand some basic public space management issues and obviously you are not interested in even thinking about it. You don't seem to be willing or able to think about park management outside of a partisan political framework.
 
michaelskis said:
So how is it more dangerous if they opted to pay a maintenance person less to keep it open than if they paid a guard to keep it closed? That would logically address potential and actual cost issues. After all, the funding for the guard is coming from someplace.

I am still waiting for an answer regarding why the Senate is choosing to keep the parks closed, refusing to fund Medical Research, and the operations in DC.
Click to expand...

And I am still waiting why the Speaker hasn't brought a clear CR to the floor even though most surveys have said the votes are there to pass it in the House. Why would we fund our government in a piecemeal fashion by what is most "popular" or sounds the best in a political ad.

For the parks and monument question, a guard is needed regardless if the location is open or closed. The lack of maintenance workers is the concern here. Grass needs to be cut, trash emptied, site needs to be checked over for broken steps, tree branches, etc. The guards are there to watch to make sure the monuments aren't vandalized, but they don't do any of the needed maintenance.
 
michaelskis said:
So how is it more dangerous if they opted to pay a maintenance person less to keep it open than if they paid a guard to keep it closed? That would logically address potential and actual cost issues. After all, the funding for the guard is coming from someplace.

I am still waiting for an answer regarding why the Senate is choosing to keep the parks closed, refusing to fund Medical Research, and the operations in DC.
Click to expand...

If the property is closed (which is what happens during a government shutdown), I am assuming a maintenance person is considered a non-essential employee and not allowed to be present. Whereas, the guard is essential to keep people out. I am saying this as it seems to be a rationale understanding of the situation. Again, I may not like it. But as a knowledgeable person, I understand it.

The Senate does not want a piecemeal budget because it would allow the House GOP to cherry-pick politically palatable federal spending while ignoring the problems of the larger government funding issues. The House GOP wants to do it piecemeal so the public perceives them as having their best interest in mind.

I would assume someone as astute as you would understand this political maneuvering. Or do you just choose to believe all of the political talking points going around on social media?
 
Back
Top