Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 09:49AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 26 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 11:05AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 72 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 01:17PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 66 |
July 16, 2011 11:50AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,351 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 11:54AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 44 |
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 12:13PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 72 |
July 16, 2011 06:08PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 456 |
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 12:24PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 03:07PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 72 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 03:45PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 26 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 03:59PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |
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.
July 16, 2011 05:00PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 05:19PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |
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
eeek
Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.
What makes you think that?
July 16, 2011 05:26PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Quote
mtn man
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
eeek
Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.
What makes you think that?
Re: Yosemite closure July 16, 2011 05:47PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |
Quote
eeek
Quote
mtn man
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
eeek
Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.
What makes you think that?
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 17, 2011 01:22PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 72 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 17, 2011 07:23PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 4 |
Re: Yosemite closure July 17, 2011 07:37PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |
July 17, 2011 08:04PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
July 18, 2011 06:54AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
July 17, 2011 07:45PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,882 |
July 17, 2011 09:29PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
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
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.
What happened the other 15 times the government shut down since Carter?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.
July 17, 2011 11:03PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
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.
July 18, 2011 12:38AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 456 |
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.
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.
July 18, 2011 01:26AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
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.
July 18, 2011 06:58AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
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.
July 18, 2011 07:17AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
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
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.
There is no more middle class.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....
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
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.
You are giving public employee unions way much power than they actually have. Unions do not run the country.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.
No one would have to be laid off if we just repealed the Reagan tax cuts.Quote
But is the President and his administration even contemplating a 5% reduction in workforce to help balance the budget?....
No, just the Republicans.Quote
Both parties are simply running America into the ground.
July 18, 2011 08:03AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
July 18, 2011 10:33AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
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!
July 18, 2011 01:27PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 18, 2011 08:41AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 26 |
Quote
Dave
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
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.What happened the other 15 times the government shut down since Carter?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.
July 18, 2011 08:54AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
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.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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 18, 2011 08:58AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 26 |
Quote
Dave
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.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.
Maybe if we ended a few wars we wouldn't have this problem?
Re: Yosemite closure July 18, 2011 09:19AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 26 |
July 18, 2011 10:24AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 18, 2011 11:57AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 26 |
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.
July 18, 2011 01:14PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Which is exactly why the Republicans and their corporate sponsors are trying to destroy the middle class.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.
July 18, 2011 04:54PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 456 |
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.
July 18, 2011 05:37PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
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.
July 18, 2011 06:05PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 456 |
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.
July 18, 2011 06:06PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
July 18, 2011 06:24PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 18, 2011 09:06AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |
Quote
eeek
Quote
mtn man
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
eeek
Quote
mtn man
Yellowstone can't legally be sold.
What makes you think that?
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 17, 2011 08:30PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 221 |
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.
Re: Yosemite closure July 18, 2011 01:55PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |