Re: Yosemite closure

Anyone have any thoughts or theories on what might happen to Yosemite if our government does not raise the dept ceiling by Aug 2nd? Will it be closed? Nobody seems to be too concerned about it. I have reservations for the Lower Pines in September and will be traveling 2000 miles to get there so I'm REALLY concerned.

The drama queens (both parties) on Capitol Hill are nothing but a bunch of control freaks. They get off on keeping the people in this country riled up. The more riled up we get, the happier they are. They take our money and promise to do a good job "for the people," and then shaft us. None of them are honest, and the few that really want to try to fix things just get kicked in the teeth. Their scare tactics don't impress me anymore.

I suggest you relax until the 2nd, because until then there's not much you (or any of us) can do about it. If they manage to screw things up to where this country defaults on their "loans," THEN you should get concerned. I'm thinking China owning this country will trump your missed vacation to the most beautiful place on earth.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

From Calculated Risk, a reasonable explanation as to why nobody's concerned about it: Debt Ceiling Charade. He's been posting along the same lines for months now.

Congress is planning to spend next week wasting their time.

Quote
ttilley
From Calculated Risk, a reasonable explanation as to why nobody's concerned about it: Debt Ceiling Charade. He's been posting along the same lines for months now.

Congress is planning to spend next week wasting their time.

So you mean it's business as usual....

Considering those guys (and gals) have more money in their bank accounts than almost all of us put together would ever have in a lifetime, I think they should start the spending cuts with their own salaries. Cut them to a reasonable amount, i.e., $100K per year max, and make sure they have to pay for their own health care insurance, and you'd be amazed at what would happen. The majority would probably quit and then we might get someone in office who gives a flip. It should also be mandatory that they can't leave for the weekend or on a vacation if they haven't finished the business that was on the agenda when they walked in the room.

Quote
SierraGold
Considering those guys (and gals) have more money in their bank accounts than almost all of us put together would ever have in a lifetime, I think they should start the spending cuts with their own salaries. Cut them to a reasonable amount, i.e., $100K per year max, and make sure they have to pay for their own health care insurance, and you'd be amazed at what would happen. The majority would probably quit and then we might get someone in office who gives a flip. It should also be mandatory that they can't leave for the weekend or on a vacation if they haven't finished the business that was on the agenda when they walked in the room.

It'll still be lucrative as hell to be part of the revolving door between being a regulator and a highly-paid executive or lobbyist for the firms you previously regulated.

The chances of Yosemite being closed are virtually nil. While in a store on Friday, I heard the guy sitting in for Rush Limbaugh telling listeners that the US might "sell off Yellowstone."

All of that is ridiculous and absurd. Yosemite is not going to close whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.

You're probably right, since Yosemite is nothing but a cash cow to our government. If you think not, then why aren't people scalping campsites and climbing permits for other National Parks? The main reason I mentioned China (besides the fact that they've got most of our textile manufacturing) is because they also have Yosemite's "sister park."

Holy snow blowers!! I just got educated some more!! I went to get the proper spelling and a link to that park, and lo and behold -- Yosemite has TWO sister parks in China -- Huangshan and Jiuzhaigou.

http://www.wildchina.com/china-adventure-travel/overview/Yosemite-Sister-Parks-in-China-Jiuzhaigou-Huangshan-Chengdu-Hangzhou



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2011 03:08PM by SierraGold.

What makes you think they won't close Yosemite whether the dept ceiling is raised or not? It's a federal park which means it can be placed on the chopping block like any other federal facility or park. Lets think about this. In order to save Social Security, Medicare, and prevent tax increases something else has to go. What do you think that something else could be? It definitively won't be cuts from the military profiteers, it won't be the free International cash give-a-ways so what else is there? The guy that said Yellowstone might be sold may not be to far off. Don't think for a second the crooks running this country won't do what ever they have to do do keep the pockets full. If it means getting rid of everything that has to do with the happiness and needs of the people that's what goes first.

Quote
ezlivin
What makes you think they won't close Yosemite whether the dept ceiling is raised or not? It's a federal park which means it can be placed on the chopping block like any other federal facility or park. Lets think about this. In order to save Social Security, Medicare, and prevent tax increases something else has to go. What do you think that something else could be? It definitively won't be cuts from the military profiteers, it won't be the free International cash give-a-ways so what else is there? The guy that said Yellowstone might be sold may not be to far off. Don't think for a second the crooks running this country won't do what ever they have to do do keep the pockets full. If it means getting rid of everything that has to do with the happiness and needs of the people that's what goes first.

Yellowstone can't legally be sold. But someone else was right, we have mortgaged our country to the Chinese. Time to do some belt tightening.

Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.

What makes you think that?

Quote
eeek

Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.

What makes you think that?

Darn, I knew you were going to jump on that statement. I did a Nat'l Park paper in college and I remember that the parks could not be sold or developed by private concerns. OK, now I've got to spend a couple of days coming up with proof. I remember something about the 1916 NPS Organic Act, but I'm going with an old memory. I'll research it and get back to you. Anyways, realistically, selling a National Park? I'd go for selling Air Force 1 first.

Quote
mtn man

Quote
eeek

Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.

What makes you think that?

Darn, I knew you were going to jump on that statement. I did a Nat'l Park paper in college and I remember that the parks could not be sold or developed by private concerns. OK, now I've got to spend a couple of days coming up with proof. I remember something about the 1916 NPS Organic Act, but I'm going with an old memory. I'll research it and get back to you. Anyways, realistically, selling a National Park? I'd go for selling Air Force 1 first.

That might be the current law but it isn't enshrined in the Constitution. There's nothing to prevent Congress from selling off the parks if they so desire.

Quote
eeek

Quote
mtn man

Quote
eeek

Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.

What makes you think that?

Darn, I knew you were going to jump on that statement. I did a Nat'l Park paper in college and I remember that the parks could not be sold or developed by private concerns. OK, now I've got to spend a couple of days coming up with proof. I remember something about the 1916 NPS Organic Act, but I'm going with an old memory. I'll research it and get back to you. Anyways, realistically, selling a National Park? I'd go for selling Air Force 1 first.

That might be the current law but it isn't enshrined in the Constitution. There's nothing to prevent Congress from selling off the parks if they so desire.

Are you 100% sure?

That thought really makes my stomach hurt

Democrats would never do that. Republicans might.

Quote
shellfish
Democrats would never do that. Republicans might.

Exact opposite.

Quote
mtn man

Quote
shellfish
Democrats would never do that. Republicans might.

Exact opposite.

Don't think so... the GOP calls it "privatization."

Quote
mtn man

Quote
shellfish
Democrats would never do that. Republicans might.

Exact opposite.

What is the reasoning with that? Why would Republicans prefer to retain Federal ownership of National Parks?

Seems like the "my way or the highway" extremists are in control in both parties while moderates hold down the minority opinion. The right wingers say don't touch revenue. The left wingers say don't touch entitlements. What's left of any significance? It's disgusting.

If Yosemite got shut down would there actually be anybody on paid duty to prevent us from entering? For that matter, do they have the right to shut down Rt. 120/Tioga Pass just because the NPS isn't working? Maybe Dave can chime in here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2011 07:54PM by tomdisco.

Quote
tomdisco
Seems like the "my way or the highway" extremists are in control in both parties while moderates hold down the minority opinion. The right wingers say don't touch revenue. The left wingers say don't touch entitlements. What's left of any significance? It's disgusting.

Here's the way it is; the Democrats want to make the rich to cough up a few more bucks they won't miss and the Republicans want to throw grandma under the bus by privitizing Medicare and killing Social Security even though SS has absolutely nothing to do with the debt or the budget.

Quote

If Yosemite got shut down would there actually be anybody on paid duty to prevent us from entering? For that matter, do they have the right to shut down Rt. 120/Tioga Pass just because the NPS isn't working? Maybe Dave can chime in here.

What happened the other 15 times the government shut down since Carter?

Quote
Dave

Quote
tomdisco

Seems like the "my way or the highway" extremists are in control in both parties while moderates hold down the minority opinion. The right wingers say don't touch revenue. The left wingers say don't touch entitlements. What's left of any significance? It's disgusting.

Here's the way it is; the Democrats want to make the rich to cough up a few more bucks they won't miss and the Republicans want to throw grandma under the bus by privitizing Medicare and killing Social Security even though SS has absolutely nothing to do with the debt or the budget.

The problem with all these "soak the rich" tax schemes is that they invariably trickle down to the middle class, for one simple reason: that's where the money is. This has happened before with our modern federal income tax that was implemented in 1913. It also happend with the Alterative Minimum Tax that was implemented in 1970. And also with the federal inheritance tax. All of these taxes were initially only meant to touch the rich -- that they would not impact America's middle class.

Today, America has a lot of millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that most of the wealth (and income) that's generated in this country is still generated by our large middle class. Even if the federal government taxed our wealthiest citizens 100% of their income, that would only make a very minor dent in our federal government deficit. But it would make a lot people feel good that we "soaked the rich".

The problem with our federal government isn't just out of control entitlements, though it's a MAJOR problem (but not Social Security which is pretty much fine as it is. It only needs some minor tweaks), but that our federal government has also become far too bloated with far too many employees and contractors working for it.

But what the President wants to avoid at all cost is a massive layoff of Federal employees -- it would make his major allies in the public employee unions very unhappy and could very easily cost him their support. Payroll is simply the number one expense of any large organization. That's why companies that are in the deep red have to have massive layoffs to get back into the black.

But is the President and his administration even contemplating a 5% reduction in workforce to help balance the budget? No sir. But unless the workforce of the federal government is reduced to a more manageable level, there's no way that the federal budget could ever break even again.

But laying off Federal employees isn't the only thing the federal government must to do get to get its budget deficit under control. Besides reforming Medicare (a major must), they need to stop subsidizing Corporate America with all their corporate welfare programs (including energy company subsidies and farm subsidies among a host of other subsidies). In other words, they need to adopt real austerity measures that other countries had to adopt to get back to a balance budget.

Yet no one in the U.S. government (neither Democrat nor Republican) wants to adopt the tough necessary measures to bring our national deficit truly under control. Both parties are just trying to protect their special interests from any pain. A pox on both of their houses!

Both parties are simply running America into the ground.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2011 11:31PM by plawrence.

Quote
plawrence
Today, America has a lot of millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that most of the wealth (and income) that's generated in this country is still generated by our large middle class.

That doesn't pass the smell test at all with the enormous disparities in income and wealth in this nation. These figures are from 2005, though I can't imagine they're much different now.

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

Quote
mbear

Quote
plawrence
Today, America has a lot of millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that most of the wealth (and income) that's generated in this country is still generated by our large middle class.

That doesn't pass the smell test at all with the enormous disparities in income and wealth in this nation. These figures are from 2005, though I can't imagine they're much different now.

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

The one problem with studies like these is that they often show paper gains (or declines) of the vast stock holdings of the wealthiest individuals of our country. But unless these individuals sell their stocks in a given year, the capital gains of their stocks within their investments portfolio are non-taxable. So their yearly net worth can increase at a vast higher rate than the typical American (hence a widening wealth gap) but that net increase of wealth isn't taxable unless the individual sells their stock. The same thing with homeowners. A homeowner's net worth can increase by a vast amount when their home appreciates in value over the years, but that net capital gains isn't taxable (via an income tax) unless that home is sold.

One thing though that Congress should do (but won't) is to eliminate the many tax shelters out there that shelters individuals, especially the wealthiest, when they do sell their stocks. The President has proposed doing some of that this year (along with tax increases). I support the elimination of the tax shelter loopholes in the tax code, but not the increase in the income tax rates.

Quote
plawrence

Quote
mbear

Quote
plawrence
Today, America has a lot of millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that most of the wealth (and income) that's generated in this country is still generated by our large middle class.

That doesn't pass the smell test at all with the enormous disparities in income and wealth in this nation. These figures are from 2005, though I can't imagine they're much different now.

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

The one problem with studies like these is that they often show paper gains (or declines) of the vast stock holdings of the wealthiest individuals of our country. But unless these individuals sell their stocks in a given year, the capital gains of their stocks within their investments portfolio are non-taxable. So their yearly net worth can increase at a vast higher rate than the typical American (hence a widening wealth gap) but that net increase of wealth isn't taxable unless the individual sells their stock. The same thing with homeowners. A homeowner's net worth can increase by a vast amount when their home appreciates in value over the years, but that net capital gains isn't taxable (via an income tax) unless that home is sold.

One thing though that Congress should do (but won't) is to eliminate the many tax shelters out there that shelters individuals, especially the wealthiest, when they do sell their stocks. The President has proposed doing some of that this year (along with tax increases). I support the elimination of the tax shelter loopholes in the tax code, but not the increase in the income tax rates.

We need a national net worth or property tax (1%/annum) on any net worth greater than 1 million.

Quote
plawrence
The problem with all these "soak the rich" tax schemes is that they invariably trickle down to the middle class, for one simple reason: that's where the money is.

No one is trying to soak the rich and right now there is no money in the middle class, there is hardly any middle class. All the money is in the top 4 or 5%. The income disparity has grown so wide that until that is fixed the economy cannot recover from what the Republicans did to it.

Quote

Today, America has a lot of millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that most of the wealth (and income) that's generated in this country is still generated by our large middle class....

There is no more middle class.

Quote

The problem with our federal government isn't just out of control entitlements, though it's a MAJOR problem (but not Social Security which is pretty much fine as it is. It only needs some minor tweaks), but that our federal government has also become far too bloated with far too many employees and contractors working for it.

Then start with removing tax breaks for the rich instead of killing off the poor. Start with the biggest budge item; the military, not the poor.

Quote

But what the President wants to avoid at all cost is a massive layoff of Federal employees -- it would make his major allies in the public employee unions very unhappy and could very easily cost him their support. Payroll is simply the number one expense of any large organization. That's why companies that are in the deep red have to have massive layoffs to get back into the black.

You are giving public employee unions way much power than they actually have. Unions do not run the country.

Quote

But is the President and his administration even contemplating a 5% reduction in workforce to help balance the budget?....

No one would have to be laid off if we just repealed the Reagan tax cuts.

Quote

Both parties are simply running America into the ground.

No, just the Republicans.

What I have found interesting is the rich are now "Job producers".
Great work by the spin doctors.
Strangely, those who would benefit most by less income disparity (the lower middle class and rural poor) often are in favor of protecting the rich. Strange social permutation of the Stockholm Syndrome!

Quote
Frank Furter

Strangely, those who would benefit most by less income disparity (the lower middle class and rural poor) often are in favor of protecting the rich. Strange social permutation of the Stockholm Syndrome!

Sorry, it's not that they suffer form the Stockholm Syndrome. It's more about that many in the lower middle class and the rural poor find many Democratic candidates socially unpalatable. Most of the rural poor and lower middle class are NOT fiscal conservatives. They don't mind having a big government. But they are social conservatives. They're religious and have conservative mores. They're anti-abortion, tend to be against gay marriages and don't see nothing wrong with having prayers in schools.

The whole gay rights movement has turned off many of these former Democrats (i.e. the Reagan Democrats) from the Democratic Party, so has the Democrat's strong pro-abortion stance. It's not that they agree with the Republican's Big Business agenda, but that the Republicans cater to their social conservative mores and the Democrats don't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2011 10:46AM by plawrence.

Quote
plawrence

Quote
Frank Furter

Strangely, those who would benefit most by less income disparity (the lower middle class and rural poor) often are in favor of protecting the rich. Strange social permutation of the Stockholm Syndrome!

Sorry, it's not that they suffer form the Stockholm Syndrome. It's more about that many in the lower middle class and the rural poor find many Democratic candidates socially unpalatable. Most of the rural poor and lower middle class are NOT fiscal conservatives. They don't mind having a big government. But they are social conservatives. They're religious and have conservative mores. They're anti-abortion, tend to be against gay marriages and don't see nothing wrong with having prayers in schools.

The whole gay rights movement has turned off many of these former Democrats (i.e. the Reagan Democrats) from the Democratic Party, so has the Democrat's strong pro-abortion stance. It's not that they agree with the Republican's Big Business agenda, but that the Republicans cater to their social conservative mores and the Democrats don't.

That is not a flattering portrait of poor Republicans. However, imagine how pleased the wealthy are that they can maintain financial superiority though political control by pandering to the ethnocentrism, self-righteous religious prejudices, xenophobia, chauvinistic jingoism, and intolerance of poorly educated and misinformed voters.

Quote
Dave

Quote
tomdisco
Seems like the "my way or the highway" extremists are in control in both parties while moderates hold down the minority opinion. The right wingers say don't touch revenue. The left wingers say don't touch entitlements. What's left of any significance? It's disgusting.

Here's the way it is; the Democrats want to make the rich to cough up a few more bucks they won't miss and the Republicans want to throw grandma under the bus by privitizing Medicare and killing Social Security even though SS has absolutely nothing to do with the debt or the budget.

Quote

If Yosemite got shut down would there actually be anybody on paid duty to prevent us from entering? For that matter, do they have the right to shut down Rt. 120/Tioga Pass just because the NPS isn't working? Maybe Dave can chime in here.

What happened the other 15 times the government shut down since Carter?

@ Dave, in the Jimmy days we did not have a 14 trillion dollar dept hanging over our heads. We could raise the dept level a couple hundred notches back then....ho-hum. Not now.

Quote
ezlivin
@ Dave, in the Jimmy days we did not have a 14 trillion dollar dept hanging over our heads. We could raise the dept level a couple hundred notches back then....ho-hum. Not now.

Since the first Bush Republicans voted 19 times to Increase debt limit by $4 trillion. Now that a Democrat is president they claim it is a bad thing to raise the debt limit.

Maybe if we ended a few wars we wouldn't have this problem?

Quote
Dave

Quote
ezlivin
@ Dave, in the Jimmy days we did not have a 14 trillion dollar dept hanging over our heads. We could raise the dept level a couple hundred notches back then....ho-hum. Not now.

Since the first Bush Republicans voted 19 times to Increase debt limit by $4 trillion. Now that a Democrat is president they claim it is a bad thing to raise the debt limit.

Maybe if we ended a few wars we wouldn't have this problem?

I agree totally.

@ Dave, Democrats and Republicans are all the same in my book, nothing will change no matter what clown show we vote into office. This voting thing has turned out to be nothing more than a sham. Something to make us feel like we are free and doing the democracy thing. What a joke! IMO I believe there is a hidden Plutocracy at work. The king on the hill scenario. The people are so busy trying to make ends meet they don't have time to figure it out. But I thing it's starting to sink in. Anyways, I hope I can make my annual trip to Yosemite. Seems to get harder to do that each year now. Yosemite has always been my cure.

Quote
ezlivin
@ Dave, Democrats and Republicans are all the same in my book, nothing will change no matter what clown show we vote into office. This voting thing has turned out to be nothing more than a sham. Something to make us feel like we are free and doing the democracy thing. What a joke! IMO I believe there is a hidden Plutocracy at work. The king on the hill scenario. The people are so busy trying to make ends meet they don't have time to figure it out. But I thing it's starting to sink in.

Yup. The only thing members of both major political parties truly care about is getting re-elected so they can continue to live their sumptuous lifestyles as elected officials and continue on their power trips. They only people they truly care about as those who contribute the big bucks to their reelection campaigns. That's all. So the Republicans cater to their big time financial contributors and the Democrats do likewise. To believe otherwise is to be extremely naive.

That's why both political parties give ordinary American citizens the shaft, because often the right thing to do would require them to go against their major financial benefactors. And that's not going to happen.

America is in a dire need of one or two new, preferably more centrist, political parties whose candidates will actually have the interests of ordinary American citizens at heart.

Quote
plawrence

Quote
ezlivin
@ Dave, Democrats and Republicans are all the same in my book, nothing will change no matter what clown show we vote into office. This voting thing has turned out to be nothing more than a sham. Something to make us feel like we are free and doing the democracy thing. What a joke! IMO I believe there is a hidden Plutocracy at work. The king on the hill scenario. The people are so busy trying to make ends meet they don't have time to figure it out. But I thing it's starting to sink in.

Yup. The only thing members of both major political parties truly care about is getting re-elected so they can continue to live their sumptuous lifestyles as elected officials and continue on their power trips. They only people they truly care about as those who contribute the big bucks to their reelection campaigns. That's all. So the Republicans cater to their big time financial contributors and the Democrats do likewise. To believe otherwise is to be extremely naive.

That's why both political parties give ordinary American citizens the shaft, because often the right thing to do would require them to go against their major financial benefactors. And that's not going to happen.

America is in a dire need of one or two new, preferably more centrist, political parties whose candidates will actually have the interests of ordinary American citizens at heart.

Absolutely! A party for the hardworking middle class! To get it started we could create a type of union where all middle class join together. Funds for this new party could be donations from the middle class members which there would be millions. I think every middle class American knows what the agenda of the party would be. It's time to take back our country and only the people can do that. A true American Union Party is what we need right now. The participation of rich Plutocrats and Socialist freeloaders is prohibited....LOL.

Quote
ezlivin
Absolutely! A party for the hardworking middle class! To get it started we could create a type of union where all middle class join together. Funds for this new party could be donations from the middle class members which there would be millions. I think every middle class American knows what the agenda of the party would be. It's time to take back our country and only the people can do that. A true American Union Party is what we need right now. The participation of rich Plutocrats and Socialist freeloaders is prohibited....LOL.

Which is exactly why the Republicans and their corporate sponsors are trying to destroy the middle class.

Someone had a good idea; Congresspersons would have to wear a suit similar to what NASCAR drivers wear. They'd have to list their corporate donors on that suit.

Quote
plawrence
America is in a dire need of one or two new, preferably more centrist, political parties whose candidates will actually have the interests of ordinary American citizens at heart.

The constitution isn't written to make that a possibility. You could never have 3 legitimate candidates in a presidential election, unless you want the house choosing the president like they did with John Quincy Adams.

Quote
mbear

Quote
plawrence
America is in a dire need of one or two new, preferably more centrist, political parties whose candidates will actually have the interests of ordinary American citizens at heart.

The constitution isn't written to make that a possibility. You could never have 3 legitimate candidates in a presidential election, unless you want the house choosing the president like they did with John Quincy Adams.

HUH? How does the constitution limit the presidential election (or any election, for that matter) to two candidates? I suspect the original vision anticipated multiple candidates without actual political parties whatsoever. The evolution of the current system is more by efficiency and default than by intention.

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote
mbear

Quote
plawrence
America is in a dire need of one or two new, preferably more centrist, political parties whose candidates will actually have the interests of ordinary American citizens at heart.

The constitution isn't written to make that a possibility. You could never have 3 legitimate candidates in a presidential election, unless you want the house choosing the president like they did with John Quincy Adams.

HUH? How does the constitution limit the presidential election (or any election, for that matter) to two candidates? I suspect the original vision anticipated multiple candidates without actual political parties whatsoever. The evolution of the current system is more by efficiency and default than by intention.

By requiring the winner to get a majority of the electoral vote. That would often not happen with three or more legit political parties.

Quote
mbear
By requiring the winner to get a majority of the electoral vote. That would often not happen with three or more legit political parties.

Electors are only bound on their first vote. After that they can switch to other candidates.

Quote
mbear

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote
mbear

Quote
plawrence
America is in a dire need of one or two new, preferably more centrist, political parties whose candidates will actually have the interests of ordinary American citizens at heart.

The constitution isn't written to make that a possibility. You could never have 3 legitimate candidates in a presidential election, unless you want the house choosing the president like they did with John Quincy Adams.

HUH? How does the constitution limit the presidential election (or any election, for that matter) to two candidates? I suspect the original vision anticipated multiple candidates without actual political parties whatsoever. The evolution of the current system is more by efficiency and default than by intention.

By requiring the winner to get a majority of the electoral vote. That would often not happen with three or more legit political parties.

Check out the 12th amendment where it specifically addresses multiple candidates:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President."

Quote
eeek

Quote
mtn man

Quote
eeek

Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.

What makes you think that?

Darn, I knew you were going to jump on that statement. I did a Nat'l Park paper in college and I remember that the parks could not be sold or developed by private concerns. OK, now I've got to spend a couple of days coming up with proof. I remember something about the 1916 NPS Organic Act, but I'm going with an old memory. I'll research it and get back to you. Anyways, realistically, selling a National Park? I'd go for selling Air Force 1 first.

That might be the current law but it isn't enshrined in the Constitution. There's nothing to prevent Congress from selling off the parks if they so desire.

OK, researched this with the help of a NPS contact. Well, I was half right, Congress can't sell a National Park, BUT they can "undeclare" a National Park and then do anything they want to with that land. President could veto this but Congress can of course over ride his veto. So in effect, yes Congress could sell a National Park, through the above mentioned process. So I guess I wasn't even half right??

Quote
mtn man

Quote
ezlivin
What makes you think they won't close Yosemite whether the dept ceiling is raised or not? It's a federal park which means it can be placed on the chopping block like any other federal facility or park. Lets think about this. In order to save Social Security, Medicare, and prevent tax increases something else has to go. What do you think that something else could be? It definitively won't be cuts from the military profiteers, it won't be the free International cash give-a-ways so what else is there? The guy that said Yellowstone might be sold may not be to far off. Don't think for a second the crooks running this country won't do what ever they have to do do keep the pockets full. If it means getting rid of everything that has to do with the happiness and needs of the people that's what goes first.

Yellowstone can't legally be sold. But someone else was right, we have mortgaged our country to the Chinese. Time to do some belt tightening.

What do politicians care about doing things "legally"?

This ongoing discussion reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's quote," The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money (to spend)". Probably has nothing to do with this discussion but it just came to mind....