govy shutdown and ...... PARKS CLOSED ???

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by caccamolle, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. caccamolle macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    #1
    Are these guys completely crazy ?

    Why on earth should a national park be closed if the government shuts down ?

    I find this such an incredible b/s.

    If the govy shuts down they should simply not be able to collect fares and fees at the parks but they can't close them ! These are natural resources of our land !!! I understand paying to access in order to help funding their maintenance and stuff, but if the govy screws up .....

    It's like that we are talking about an office where if it shuts down it just means that.... this are parks !!!

    I am astonished. Can someone try to explain ?
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    I think it's because someone has to pay to maintain the infrastructure that people use in the park. Also it cost's money to enforce rules that protect them, and when someone gets lost or injured in a national park it cost's money for the SAR operation. I'm sure there are plenty more reasons, those are just a few I could think of quickly.
     
  3. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #3
    The "National" in "National Park Service" means that park employees are government employees just like any other. Since they will be furloughed, the parks will be closed. Just like the Smithsonian employees will be furloughed and the museums closed.
     
  4. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #4
    What is worse is that the soldiers may not get paid. I think that I would rather have closed parks instead of soldiers going without pay.
     
  5. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #5
    Wow, OP...on what planet do you live? Park maintenance (sanitation, security, protection - for the parks and the visitors, road/trail repair, fire monitiring, administration, etc.) all cost money. As parks are not vital to safety and security of the citizens or borders of the US, they are always first on the chopping block in a government shut down.

    I love when everyone says "cut spending" right up to the point where it affects them. The cost of civilization and all its trappings is taxes. If the those who claim to want less government and return us to our "founding priciples" get there way, there would be no protected lands for us to enjoy. You should have a look at the Ken Burns documentary on the US national parks.
     
  6. caccamolle, Apr 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2011

    caccamolle thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    #6
    yes but a park is different than a museum. I can see that the museum gets closed. I cannot see that they tell me I can't access a park.

    Just to be clear, I am talking about the big national parks ...

    agreed
     
  7. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #7
    I can kind of understand what you are saying. Sadly Americans are lousy at cleaning up behind themselves and taking care of things. Within a week the park would likely be a mess and as others have mentioned, there are the security and rescue issues as well.
     
  8. caccamolle, Apr 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2011

    caccamolle thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    #8
    Where do You live dude ?

    I am on this planet, manhattan to be precise which is in NYC, which I would hope will suggest to you that a national park closure does not affect me in the most remote sense :)

    But it does piss me off.

    And your arguments are ridiculous and typical of certain people. I will tell you why later .... but spending must be cut like there's no tomorrow ....

    sure .... but if there's nobody watching how are they going to enforce the closure ? Again, a museum, you shut the doors. A national park ? My point here is about black mail applied in a context where it makes not much sense at all.
     
  9. wpotere, Apr 8, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2011

    wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #9
    Well, spending is getting ready to get cut and it is getting ready to affect 800,000 people. See the problem with cutting deep? People that want our government to remain the same year to year miss the point that this country is growing exponentially. When that happens the gov has to move with it or it will lose the ability to control anything. I agree that we need to cut in certain areas, but many of the cuts being proposed are not going to help anything.
     
  10. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #10


    Nobody's going to stop you from going, but don't expect any help if you need it. Does that mean you can't go see the Grand Canyon? Not at all, you just won't be able to park in the park area but the canyon is big enought that you could still see it.
     
  11. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #11
    Irrelevant. The National Parks and the Smithsonian are the same in that they are both staffed by federal employees. No federal employees = no open parks or Smithsonian museums.
     
  12. ehoui macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    #12
    I read somewhere else this morning that park rangers will still be working, so someone will be "watching," but like even when the parks are open, individuals have the ability to slip through unnoticed.

    I don't mind that both sides are tough negotiators, what I do mind is that this is way too late and is irrelevant to the bigger issue of systemic changes to our government's cost and/or revenue structures.

    This seems like a like of hot air, frankly, which is going to a hurt people who give our government (and therefore us) service.

    Spoiled children, the lot of them.
     
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
    They will close the gates that block off the entrances, I guess you could get out of your car and walk around if you want to, but your car won't be going in, and you probably could get in a lot of trouble if someone happened to be there and catch you.
     
  14. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #14
    I rarely make political statements but not paying the soldiers is a very cheap stunt. In the last shut down the military was paid.

    The soldiers should indicate that they will extract their pay from the local populace or from government property on their bases etc :)


    I am not particularly partisan i don't hate this admin, didn't vote for it but wish it the best.

    The military thing is beyond bad.

    The parks can close i get it.
     
  15. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #15
    All direct-hire federal employees were paid for the lost time in 96 (retroactively).
     
  16. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #16
    If you're looking for an open National Park, come on up to Canada! No government shut down here.... well, actually - we did close the Parliament, but that has to do with an election - not finances..... anyway, lots of Parks. Lots to see and do. And if want to relive the fun of government line ups and red-tape just pop into a Federal Government office and apply for landed-immigrant status or something (you don't have to actually go through with it - but I can assure you that you get the chance to fill in government forms, in two languages). :D
     
  17. caccamolle thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    #17
    I do see the problem with potentially thousands of people suddenly being out of a job. It's a social concern for sure. But the solution is not government.

    Also, this country is not growing exponentially, I am not sure what you are talking about.

    We need to reduce government drastically and unfortunately there will be costs with that but the longer we wait the more costly it will be.
     
  18. caccamolle thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    #18
    Very relevant. Can't really close a park. Period. Certainly can close a museum and in fact you need to. Remember there would be no employees to guard the access to parks ! Not so difficult a concept to grasp.

    This is low level politics - trying to impress upon those families who had planned vacation at national parks ...... pathetic.

    Many decades of exuberance at all levels .... there's a price to pay and the credit crisis was just the beginning, I am afraid.
     
  19. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #19
    Have you ever been to a park? There are big gates across most of the entrances. You can get into a closed park just like you can get into a closed museum.

    In any case, you still seem to be missing the fundamental cause of the park's closure. Perhaps you should read about the National Park Service, the General Schedule, and how the NPS is staffed.
     
  20. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #20
    That is your view... I simply don't see it that way and I am not sure what reducing the government would do. As for the exponentially remark, we have doubled in size within 40 years. You can draw the chart however you like, but I grew up in the country and my town is no longer considered the country because it is now part of Dallas. The numbers in the census are pretty significant for only 40 years and as we continue to double we will grow bigger and bigger even faster, thus my comment.

    You are certainly entiteld to your opinion, I just don't agree with "deep" cuts but I do think that we need to cut the fat. Sadly there is a lot of that in our government but cutting deep and going small are just two things that don't work well with a country this size.

    Since you are so keen on this, what would you cut? It is possible that we may actually see eye to eye on many of these items. Since you brought up the parks, why not cut that funding? Simply open it up and let them be a free for all? What would happen if the government did this?
     
  21. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #21
    I've never heard a good argument for "reduce government drastically". Not as an absolute rule, but generally speaking, industrialized countries with heatlhy democracies and bigger governments tend to be healthier, happy, more financially stable and wealthier (for the average citizen) than countries (like the US) that tend towards smaller governments.

    The services that get added to a government are generally there because enough citizens demanded that these services be provided, and they elected representatives to enact them. So, if you are going to cut government services keep in mind that the services that get cut may be the ones you depend on - but because more people thought their services were important their needs were met - not your yours.

    If you cut services provided by the government, it just means that the private sector will need to provide them. Not every service provided by the private sector is "cheaper". Governments get big discounts based on volume, plus there is no profit margin. As an example - take a necessary service, one you absolutely need. Do you want to buy it from an entity whose mandate is to provide it as cheaply as possible, or from a company whose mandate is to charge you as much as possible? Plus make a profit?

    Do you know why so many prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada? Because the provincial governments are the one's negotiating the purchase price. One big volume purchase, from an entity that then doesn't add a profitable markup from selling critical lifesaving drugs.

    Like I said earlier. Come on up to Canada if you want government services. We're open for business - though your dollar won't go as far as it did a couple of years ago.
     
  22. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #22
    How much has been spent on "The War on Terror"?

    How much money in workers' pay and thus taxes went to workers overseas?

    How much went to bail out Wall Street?

    enough said...
     
  23. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #23
    The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China both Huge Governments. One votes itself out of existence the other was forced to shift drastically to a capitalist system (where the military and government are actually for profit corporations)

    You can't compare the social democracies of western europe to the US and say that their large government systems make for better/happier functioning societies because they are not the size of the US nor to the have the same challenges. Even they are struggling to pay the public coffers and many are about to collapse.

    Even Canada is a low population country awash in oil and gas wealth, of course they can afford a big government if they want it.

    Every country is unique.
     
  24. NicoleRichie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #24
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Take into account some government offices are considered self sustaining (not taking tax money in for pay etc.). So some things you would think are going to close will not.
     
  25. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #25
    OP, I will dismiss your retort as puerile and immature.

    Do we need to cut spending? Of course, but unfortunately there is a tendency in D.C. to use a machete when slected spending cuts are needed. We need SMARTER spending, not just less.

    We also need to increase revenue. And, yes, this will mean raising taxes (direct and or indirect). And expecting that stimulating the economy alone through tax cuts will do this has been proven wrong time and time again.

    And while the country is not growing "exponentially", we are aging "exponentially". We are going to need to address the burden to society via a shrinking worker to retiree ratio and the health costs/social costs the boomers will require.

    And the whole privitization thing is ridiculous. Privatization has, on many occasions, led to less service to citizens and increased costs, with money lining the pockets of those awarded the contracts. Not all government functions cannot be run like a business. And if a government-run military is fine with you, how can government be incompetent in providing other services?

    Sound bites do not policy make. "Cut spending drastically" sounds good on a banner, but often these catch phrases cover up lack of serious contemplation and understanding of the issues.
     

Share This Page