Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 52 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
#29963 02/22/13 06:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Not a political post, just a heads up on events which could affect your plans...

If sequestering happens one week from today,

"Yosemite National Park in CA, will delay the opening of the Tioga and Glacier Point roads by as much as four weeks due to limitations on snow removal resulting from reduced staffing which will impact thousands of visitors. In 2011, Yosemite National Park had a near record 4,098,648 visitors."

There is more.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #29974 02/23/13 08:42 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
B
Offline
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
Although I am tempted to get very political regarding this non-political post...LOL...we ought to remember which entity suggested sequestering in the first place. Quiz time.

If the military and many domestic programs must tighten their belts, then why should the the park service be exempt?

On the environmental side, perhaps a delay in opening Tioga Pass (which happens alot anyway) will allow Tuolumne Meadows to rest a little longer before the hords arrive.

But, not to worry, our politicians will probably keep us all hanging in anticipation to the last possible minute and then come to some kind of agreement...

Last edited by Bob West; 02/23/13 08:42 AM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bob West #29979 02/23/13 11:22 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
If the worst that happens at Yosemite is the delay of snow removal and deferral to natural melting, I think that's getting off pretty easy. With current Northern snow pack at about 73% of normal (and dropping) it may be no big deal. Natural opening could easily be within normal limits of historic Road Openings dates. It could even make for some really nice spring skiing in the Glacier Point Road and TM areas.

Here on the Cape, we are looking at the closing of a major Visitor Center and a lot of beach.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bob West #29983 02/24/13 07:59 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted By: Bob West
Although I am tempted to get very political regarding this non-political post...LOL...we ought to remember which entity suggested sequestering in the first place. Quiz time.


No need for a quiz. Most of us know that's the party which can propose actual solutions, is able to form sentences beyond two letters, who regard trans-vaginal probes as a part of public policy as an abomination, and who may well hold the Presidency for the next 12 years.

Any questions, Mr West?




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #29988 02/24/13 08:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
B
Offline
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
Well, Kevin, I'm sorry if I stepped on your political toes - you seem very angry. Please accept my apology.

TVP's are pretty normal medical procedures - no risks involved, according to the NIH. The following article from the NIH explains why they are done:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bob West #29989 02/24/13 10:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Well, uh, if it seems like I am changing the subject, you all guessed correctly!

I was at Yosemite today -- specifically, to visit another grove of Big Trees (Tuolumne Grove; pictures later). It occured to me as I was reading about how fragile the root systems are (courtesy of the "Do Not Trample the Roots" signs) that Yosemite would really benefit by having (more) volunteer ranger docents. Whitney has our own volunteer ranger, Bob R, who has helped countless visitors enjoy and appreciate their Whitney experience all the better. I would gladly stand guard over the giant sentinals of the big tree groves (maybe all of the good looking young men would want their pictures taken with me in the spiffy ranger uniform)Perhaps the posting of volunteers throughout the park would free up even more sworn rangers to do other, more specialized jobs. Yes, I know that this is just a drop in the bucket, but the more involved the public is, the more it appreciates these parks.

PS, in Israel, simple jobs in the military such as food service & mail distribution is done by volunteers who belong to their own corps called Sar-el (which roughly translates as "volunteer")


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #29990 02/24/13 11:10 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Apparently the expected cuts will not affect the regular season services such as regular ranger patrols. In the several reports I have seen, the only cuts are to early season snow removal. I a couple of regular season visits in other years, I have never seen a ranger at either Mariposa Grove or Tuolomne Grove, but a lot of fences and signs which were remarkably effective: never seen anyone hop a fence there.

Not to say that volunteering is not a good idea, though. It sure is.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #29992 02/25/13 08:29 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
What cuts?

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #29995 02/25/13 04:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: saltydog
Not to say that volunteering is not a good idea, though. It sure is.




Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #29996 02/25/13 05:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
I'm not sure if Yosemite would allow that sort of volunteering or not. I suppose the park may be more open to low risk positions.

In terms of trail crews last year Yosemite for the first time opened up to volunteers. The PCTA led the first crew and left a good impression. Unfortunately the second crew which was not PCTA had an injury and now once again volunteers have been wiped off the board. It's really tragic considering this may have led to a whole new level of cooperation between agencies and ultimately could have spawned a whole new generation of volunteers. I suppose we will have to wait until the park superintendent retires and then maybe we can give it another shot. frown


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #29997 02/25/13 05:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Just to be clear: the sequestration and associated mandatory budget cuts will almost certainly result in fewer rangers, among other employees. All hiring --both permanent and seasonal -- is currently frozen waiting to see what develops. Hiring plans are stopped because parks don't have any idea what their budget will look like.

Because seasonal positions are, essentially, discretionary spending, that's what's easiest to cut when there's budget cuts. So that means fewer backcountry rangers, fewer trail crew, fewer maintenance employees in the frontcountry emptying trash cans and cleaning the restrooms.

This is really not a drill. It's a very real thing and the result will be further degradation of our parks. I saw a comment by one congressman who said the park service would just have to do "more with less." I get pretty tired of that attitude. For decades, a lot of pretty dedicated people have, in fact, been doing more with less. The NPS is at the point now where it's going to be doing less with less.

I also have the greatest respect for volunteers, but I fear even Bee underestimates what's involved in protecting parks. It's not just shooing people away from Giant Sequoia roots. As I'm sure everyone here knows, there's a huge amount of training and skill involved in all aspects of every job working in a park -- whether as a ranger or cleaning restrooms. Law enforcement, medical response, fire -- both structural and wildland, search and rescue done by volunteers?! And trail crew is an incredibly difficult, injury-prone and skilled job. Like almost all NPS jobs, you just can't replace that with volunteers -- folks who just show up for a few weeks or maybe even a whole season. It just doesn't work.

And there's also a larger issue: we as a society should pay for the work that people do. Somehow there's this attitude, especially in the public sector, that these "glamorous" jobs like being a ranger are so much fun that, as I've often been told, I should be paying for the privilege of doing it. No. I think protecting our parks is an important and vital job to society. I'm happy to do it and grateful we have a country that has national parks. But it's a job and it should be compensated like any other job.

Also, to be semi-political, it's an absurd proposition to be cutting jobs of any kind in the midst of a weak recovery from the recession. Europe is tanking precisely because they're following a draconian policy of austerity despite clear evidence it's not working. When you lay people off, they're not going to spend money, they're not going to earn money to pay taxes and the country goes into a slow death spiral. The debt and deficit are not the current crisis, unemployment is. The solution is for sure not to make it worse.

George



None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bob West #29998 02/25/13 05:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Quote:
TVP's are pretty normal medical procedures - no risks involved, according to the NIH.


Right, but that's not the issue. The question is should an invasive and unnecessary procedure be required (!) by legislative fiat rather than by a person's physician. In this particular reference, all medical opinion says there's absolutely no necessity for it, that it's purely political and, essentially, punitive.

I hope we don't get into a kerfuffle on this, but it seemed important to make that point as a follow-up.

g.



None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #29999 02/25/13 08:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Quote:
Somehow there's this attitude, especially in the public sector, that these "glamorous" jobs like being a ranger are so much fun that, as I've often been told, I should be paying for the privilege of doing it.


Lol now that one is good. Most people that have those sorts of attitudes have never actually seen the job in action.

The same goes for people who push hard core for trail crews to not use any power tools at all. I don't think they have ever done any trail work.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RoguePhotonic #30000 02/25/13 08:58 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: woodsy guy
Somehow there's this attitude, especially in the public sector, that these "glamorous" jobs like being a ranger are so much fun that, as I've often been told, I should be paying for the privilege of doing it.


Oh, yes -- I quite agree. When that TV show Six Feet Under aired, we had people knocking down the door to trying to get a job at the mortuary,,,,(okay, dark sick humour that some of you will get)

By no means AT ALL do I Beelieve that "replacing" professionals with volunteers is the answer (I know this first hand, because I have worked under that environment), as a lot of time, the professionals end up 'babysitting' the volunteers, thus, nothing is gained.

I am in the camp of Robert Reich, Paul Krugman & the Tennessee Valley Authority as far as economic recovery goes....and whilst I am handing out opines: gov't required image testing for the females is repugnant, but I digress. (I Beelieve that comment #2 is the only relevent comment on this post)


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RoguePhotonic #30002 02/25/13 10:05 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
I've been thinking lately, why just cut government, how about replacing it completely. We could privatize the park system, start with Yosemite. Use private security guards and armed cowboys instead of those pricey Rangers. Charge hikers by the mile with surcharges for mountain peaks. Install another set of cables and an escalator on Half Dome. Those waterfalls should have generators on them to power LCD billboards behind the water. Gotta have a strip mall or two, maybe a sports arena. Rock concerts at Mirror Lake with laser lights bouncing off Half Dome, how cool is that. The Ahwahnee should be an Indian casino - great name for it. Toyota would pay big bucks for Sequoia commercials with SUVs flying through those groves. We don't need all those big trees either, just keep the biggest ones for bungee jumping. Why wait for snow plows to clear the road to Tuolumne when you can rent a snowmobile. We can do better than just cut government. ;)

Edited to cut out typos

Last edited by SierraNevada; 02/25/13 10:27 PM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30003 02/25/13 10:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
B
Offline
B
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
George and Bee have got me to thinking. A few years ago when Inyo NF asked me to be a volunteer ranger for the Forest, my first question was why. They said "Well, you are in these mountains a lot, know the territory, talk to people, answer questions, give advice, help them out of immediate or potential trouble--all the things we do. If you wore a uniform and a badge, they'd pay more attention to what you say and it would augment what we do." It would involve me logging in and out with the dispatcher, and they would appreciate it if I would carry a radio--something I resisted at first, but eventually succumbed to.

They said I would continue to climb where and when I wanted, never to be on patrol or an assignment...just be a presence in areas of my own choosing. When asked about any benefit to me, they said only that I wouldn't have to get a permit for my climbs. I replied "Well, I guess so."

So I do nothing different from what I have done for over 60 years, except now I sometimes wear a uniform with a badge (supplied by INF) and carry a radio (not supplied by INF). I'm still just some guy out in the mountains for a few days, still enjoying the Sierra as I have always done. But the current financial situation, infused with Bee's and George's inputs, has got me to thinking. Maybe I should do a little more than what I have done in the past. Venture more often over the crest, go on extended trips in the back country that I wouldn't otherwise have done, be more on the alert for people who seem out of their element instead of looking for good climbs so much.

I guess it's payback time.

Last edited by Bob R; 02/26/13 06:43 PM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bob R #30004 02/25/13 11:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
I would like to add this thought, too: When the rangers are stretched so thin that responsibilities resemble those befitting a sheriff, (rather than the interactive services that were once offered) Folks begin to view the rangers with the same wary eye as they do a "cop". (sort of the paranoia I feel when the state trooper is following me on the highway....uh-oh...which infraction did he witness??) I believe that the volunteer serves as a great smiling faced PR guy, a buffer so to speak, between the enforcer and.....Smokey Bear (wrong agency!)


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30005 02/26/13 08:37 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
B
Offline
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
For starters, I am not the person who brought up the issue of mandatory TVPs; maybe KevinR can explain why he felt it needed to be mentioned.

In the discussion regarding the budget cuts (that I see as draconian when applied to the protection of our wilderness areas)there is a wide variety of opinion; some pro, some con. Perhaps there is a clash of cultures that has spilled over into all our discussions? I don't know. We all tend to see issues through the lenses of our presuppositions, which may or may not reflect objective truth.

This article might explain the problem better that I can:

http://eppc.org/publications/pubID.4966/pub_detail.asp




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bob West #30006 02/26/13 09:16 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 464
Likes: 1
R
Offline
R
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 464
Likes: 1
That's a great article. Often it's left against right, blue vs red, etc. Each side thinks the other 65 million voters are "ignorant morons."

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RenoFrank #30007 02/26/13 12:52 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
All terrific comments. I especially like the attaboy to Reich and Krugman (and TVA? Who knew??). Both economists contribute the clearest writing on economics for us non-statistically inclined woodsy creatures.

I also like Bob's reference to presuppositions and politics article. But I hesitantly creep over into politics here. The article (and RenoFranks comment) can be interpreted along the lines of "why can't we all just get along?" And I think if the sentiments of Wehner's piece was strictly followed -- recognizing the humanity of the opposition -- then we could have actual and honest debate about public policy.

Variations on Wehner's theme are everywhere and, I think, misinterpreted. Too often it's represented as a false equivalence -- when two sides disagree there must be a center. The current narrative in much of the press assumes that both sides are equally responsible for any intransigence.

I veer into the politics of this because the overall issue is an important discussion worth having everywhere, even amongst this woodsy gathering: what is the role of government; what should we pay for it; and who should pay what? We are here because of a shared affinity for (publicly funded) National Forests and Parks. The "I hate guvment and I hate taxes" crowd is an ancient and venerable US tradition, yet more than a little hypocritical. Part of that crowd does wake up, usually when their social security checks or medicare is threatened; or a bridge collapses; or the murder rate goes up because police have been laid off; or a park is closed; & etc. However, a minority is currently holding the country hostage and has clearly stated there is no compromise. Any solution can only involve cutting government spending.

So essentially what we have is an influential group saying, yep, let the leper suffer, he's not our problem. But the radio that Bob & I carry costs money; there's an entire support staff behind both of us that costs even more money. The correct proposition is not "If the military and many domestic programs must tighten their belts, then why should the the park service be exempt?" but instead: can that very choice be avoided? Can we, through cuts (later, as most economists advocate) and increasing revenue, continue the services we've come to expect of government?

We can and will quibble about what to cut; and quibble about where to find the money, but both solutions are necessary. In that sense, both sides are not equally to blame and the hoped-for compromise requires just that, a real compromise and not absolutism.

g.



Last edited by George; 02/26/13 12:56 PM.

None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30008 02/26/13 02:13 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
the sequester is chump change.
somebody needs to get less. Who?




[img:left] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img]

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30009 02/26/13 05:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Eeeeek. I knew I'd made a mistake but I am a weak, weak person. As noted, economics is a bit beyond me except to say that the above (and, OK, clever) pie chart is just the teensiest bit misleading. "The last time the GOP controlled both houses" is the clue... . It could more accurately say "Just before Bush drained the Clinton surplus, started two wars, tanked the economy and drove it into the deepest recession since the Depression." That would be my biased choice anyway and I'd use sock puppets, not a pie.

More than anyone might want to know, but here's the GAO numbers and charts:

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/budgetdebt.html

But I don't think we should veer this way (said the guy who just did. Did I mention what a weak person I am?). Let's assume the above is somewhat accurate. OK. Now what? If you think government is too big, what don't you want? Should, as SierraNevada cheerfully tongue-in-cheek proposed, the public lands -- Yosemite, Constitution Hall, Civil War battlefields etc. -- be privatized? No question the private sector could make money off the popular parks and sell off anything that just doesn't make the cut. So let's just keep it to the National Parks & Forests as somehow representative of government waste or something we don't think the US should support. What would you cut? Should we close parks? Which ones? Not put out fires? Not rescue people, respond to motor vehicle accidents, wait for an ambulance from the nearest town to render medical aid instead of rangers who are paid to take advanced medical training.

That's the discussion needed which is being otherwise avoided and disguised by talk of trillions and billions and even the word sequestration. It's real people being laid off, real services being cut. If that's the choice, OK, but it should be made with clear understanding of the actual choices and consequences.

When the government was shut down some years ago and a number of parks closed, many otherwise conservative communities suddenly realized that the local and often hated park was drawing in people and money for them. Shazzam, suddenly they (among others) pressured the republicans (Gingrich et al) to quickly reversed course and passed a budget.

g.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30010 02/26/13 06:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
It's somewhat asinine to me to say if the military has to tighten it's belt then why should the National Parks be exempt. They should be exempt because I see on the NPS website their budget is listed as about 3.2 billion. When the Department of Defense is approaching 1000 Billion. 1 trillion dollars is an unimaginable amount of money when put into all sorts of perspectives. If the NPS can operative as it does now on a crappy little 3.2 billion then wouldn't you love to sap 3.2 billion away from the defense budget which is a tiny amount compared to it all and double the NPS budge to 6.4 billion a year and see what can get done?

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Government still claiming that 1 trillion dollars a year just goes missing and that the reason for this is because their computers do not talk to each other? How about some efforts be focused on making a computer talk to another computer instead of cutting every other little service for the people that hardly has any effect on the budget at all. :cry:

I swore I would stay away from poltical threads but here I am. :confused:

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RoguePhotonic #30011 02/26/13 06:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I swore I would stay away from poltical threads but here I am. confused

So far, this thread has generated a lot more light than heat, the discourse is civil, and I'm proud of you all. Keep a level strain!


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30013 02/26/13 08:39 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
B
Offline
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 908
Likes: 2
The problem with the "can't we just get along" approach is that it can create a situation where objective truth (yes, it really exists) is ignored. And the "true truth" of the matter is that this country has spent itself into a hole, and the politicians in charge are so beholden to special interests and political ideology that they seem unable to face the plain facts.

I'd wager that if my own CPA (or some other one outside of the DC beltway) were given the job of doing a line by line evaluation of the national budget he could come up with enough spending cuts to get us out of this mess. Most politicians might be very unhappy with his solutions, but there lies the problem.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30015 02/27/13 03:06 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103


That pie chart is an interesting example of cherry-picking data. 2007 was the height of the stock market climb based on all the bogus real estate borrowing and lending. (Anybody want to go back to those days?) So of course the federal deficit was small.

Unfortunately, between 2007 and 2013, the Great Recession sort of blew a hole in the sweet cherry pie. There are no easy solutions.

Here's a more realistic picture: S&P 500 Index Chart, 2003-2013


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30016 02/27/13 05:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
No need to re-analyze the pie details if they are not quite right. (After all, they are statistics). It was shown simply as a catchy attention-getter.

Personally, I have no problem with federal spending that we at least get a tangible benefit for; Park Service, military, Interstate highways, etc. Not only do we get something, they are also work-projects as opposed to some freebie entitlements.



Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30017 02/27/13 09:49 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Again, what cuts? If you are spending more this year than the previous year, you are not cutting a thing. You a spending more, maybe not as much as you like but more. I hate it when Washington elites be they Democrats or Republicans call a slowing in growth a cut.

At last look, we were spending 25% of GDP, up from about 20 during the Bush Administration. We have a spending problem. Choices have to be made what is cut...real cuts not these phony-baloney "cuts".

If you want a huge national park and forest system, let those of us who use it pay a greater share of the freight. I don't have problem paying for my Adventure Pass or permit fees. I would not mind increases user fees. What many want is the equivalent free access to UCLA, Ohio State, etc. football game.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RenoFrank #30019 02/27/13 03:27 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 25
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 25
Originally Posted By: RenoFrank
That's a great article. Often it's left against right, blue vs red, etc. Each side thinks the other 65 million voters are "ignorant morons."
Then there are those of us who think the other 129999999 voters are ignorant morons. crazy

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30020 02/27/13 05:34 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
"cherry picking data" -- heh, heh, heh.

And, this just in, using volunteers to take up the slack is now out:

Quote:
The Associated Press obtained a Park Service memo Friday that detailed some of the planned Yosemite cuts. Staff reductions would end guided ranger programs at Wawona and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias, eliminate a program in which 3,500 volunteers provide 40,000 hours of activities and mean less frequent trash pickup due to loss of campground staff.

I would guess that most parks will eliminate extraneous budget stuff and pull back to the core of basic services: fire, law enforcement, medical and search. Even these, though, will be affected if seasonals (like, um, me) are cut. There aren't enough permanent staff, especially in the large parks, to handle incidents or even day to day stuff in the peak visitor season.

And on to the debt. While it's true that we are spending 25% of GDP, that's not a huge crisis, certainly not one necessitating drastic cuts in a tanked economy. The ratio got there because people are unemployed, they're not spending, businesses are not buying and hiring people, no one is paying as much in taxes, and the government paying for obligated expenses (SS, Medicare etc.) and also increased unemployment and other safety net costs. So debt to GDP went up. But, as the economy recovers, it's now coming down. Spending is not the main problem and cause; unemployment and a stagnant economy is.

Just hours ago Krugman had a pretty good blog post on why it's not a crisis and pointing out that Bernacke, in Congressional testimony, agrees.

Quote:
What's more, there really isn't any huge urgency about deficit reduction. Borrowing costs are low, and current projections show only a modest rise in the debt-GDP ratio over the next decade. Beyond that there are bigger issues — but these issues don't have to be solved right away, and should not be used to justify growth-killing austerity now.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/bernanke-of-hippo/


He's also got this one earlier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/opinio...mc=rss&_r=0

Sorry to overdo Krugman, known leftist (though a Nobel prize in econ and teaching gig at Princeton gives him a certain authority) but he's a terrific and clear writer, provides independent data (e.g. GAO) and admits when he's unsure or <gasp> wrong.

Bob's right that his CPA could probably find a zillion legitimate cuts to make. But that's not the way it works, nor should. We have Congress and voters to do that. Having a single person decide what's "waste, fraud and abuse" is, to a certain extent, what sequestration is imposing. For all this caterwauling about spending too much, it's Congress who approved every bit of spending we're doing. Blaming a particular administration is partially correct, but misses the cause. We vote for them.

For the parks -- and government as a whole -- the question remains what is the role of government in our lives; what services are we willing to do without; what are we willing to pay; and how is that money going to be raised? The pie chart is correct in that sequestration cuts are a teensy part of reducing the debt. That can only come from working with things like social security and medicare (though costs for the latter are coming down and changing debt projections). Are we in an immediate crisis requiring austerity and a likely descent back into recession (e.g. Europe & Great Britain) or can a solution be part of a long range plan: get us jobs now and out of this weak economic doldrums and agree to long-range manipulation of earned benefit programs (aka "entitlements").



None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
HikeUp #30021 02/27/13 06:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Polarization is great for shades - not so much for politics. It's hard to touch on a topic of discussion nowadays that won't eventually devolve into party line-taking if allowed to go on long enough. That's why I don't belong to a party, and never will.

The problem is simple, the solution not. Onerous, crushing, unsustainable debt is bad. Very bad. For individuals, companies, or countries. No one in their right mind can look at out national debt and say, "no big deal." The piper always gets paid.

Two solutions exist - and only two. Generate a lot more topline (usually higher taxes in the absence of a steamroller economy), or slash the expenses and piss innumerable constituencies off. Neither is likely to happen in the current polarized environment. I failed to mention the 3rd cure - printing more money - but the downside to that is self-evident (although it's not stopped Uncle Sam from doing so on many occasions).

The Catch-22, though, is the fragile economy. It likely can't take a hit of any significant tax increases due to the repercussions in GDP and job losses, nor can the budget be slashed to any appreciable degree due to that same ugly spectre of resulting unemployment. Either approach would send the economy into a tailspin again. And there would be hell to pay at the polls - which is the dominant theme in Washington.

So, stalemate. And anything that is implemented will be almost purely cosmetic and designed to appease one base or another. If we can't come to agreement on stopping the bleeding (reducing deficit spending), how will a real cure (significantly reducing the debt) ever become a reality?

The national debt is borderline unsolvable. It may be past that point already. These "solutions" that are being promoted by both parties barely scratch the surface. We're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bulldog34 #30023 02/27/13 06:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30024 02/27/13 07:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: woodsy guy
Sorry to overdo Krugman, known leftist (though a Nobel prize in econ and teaching gig at Princeton gives him a certain authority) but he's a terrific and clear writer, provides independent data (e.g. GAO) and admits when he's unsure or <gasp> wrong.


It's really nice to not Bee the only one in the room who is always quoting Krugman!!

I was just listening to an NPR program(REALLY starting to sound like a lefty) about failing cities, and one of the interesting points brought up is that as long as people are unemployed/suffer cuts there is no tax income, spending, services, & eventually the town shutters and the people move out. Cave-in. Detroit is something that we should all pay attention to, as it serves as a failure model.

The other thing that comes to mind is the Silent Running scenario that it only takes a generation or two to forget what we once had (in the case of the movie: forests), so that people eventually get used to a diminished services, closed parks -- whatever the future holds. I know that when folks start in with "when grampa was a boy" there were redwoods everywhere, the younger folk roll their eyes.

Okay, Lefty moment over.


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #30025 02/27/13 08:32 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Bee: the "lefty" or, as we now prefer, progressive moment should never be over! It is a dismal commentary on the power of the tea party types (note: not republicans) that being left of center is somehow something to apologize for.

Quote:
No one in their right mind can look at out national debt and say, "no big deal."


Perhaps a misunderstanding perpetuated by Joe Scarborough and crowd. Krugman (and Stiglitz & Reich & Bernacke etc.) would not say about the deficit and debt "no big deal." Krugman has repeatedly said it's definitely necessary to deal with, but ONLY when the recession is over (e.g. unemployment under about 6%). The point is, the debt is not an immediate crisis (that is, within, say the next 5 years). It's not a "sound mind" thing. Actual bare-naked economists agree (ewwwwww!):

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-people-who-disagree-with-joe-scarborough-2013-1

Debts to GDP ratio have, historically, been even higher and we've done quite well. If and when the economy recovers, this is not at all an issue.

A slightly geeky side note is how accurate can any forecast be beyond maybe 10 years and should we bind decisions made now to predictions 20 years out? That (if I understand him correctly) is Krugman's point.

The debt may be, as Bulldog says, "unsolvable" but it may not be all that critical for the moment. Solving the unemployment problem is the critical factor for economic recovery.

Once again, these are real choices that are reflected in budgeting for the National Parks and Forests. Here's the root of the problem (see graph);
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/...icized-than-cut

Everyone wants government and services but seem unwilling to acknowledge that they cost money. Who should pay?

Finally, what's with all the caterwauling about taxes. I mean, what is it worth to have an education system subsidized such that everyone has a chance at college education and so eventually contribute to innovation and a vibrant economy? To have medical care and a solid safety net for everyone so we don't end up paying for it through use of Emergency Departments? Having huge areas of terrain for people to see America as it was before roads and cities and McDonald's sprawled across the landscape?

I think it's worth a lot and cheerfully pay my taxes (ok, not quite cheerfully) to support that society of which I am a part.

g.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30027 02/27/13 09:58 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 25
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 25
Originally Posted By: George
Sorry to overdo Krugman, known leftist (though a Nobel prize in econ and teaching gig at Princeton gives him a certain authority) but he's a terrific and clear writer, provides independent data (e.g. GAO) and admits when he's unsure or <gasp> wrong.

Snort.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bulldog34 #30030 02/28/13 12:33 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
> Polarization is great for shades - not so much for politics.

Great line! I can wholeheartedly agree with that.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30031 02/28/13 07:28 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
I would just like to welcome all those who are now so concerned about the national debt, especially those who were silent about it since the early 80's when the budget deficits began to grow big time. While embarking on massive deficit spending to enlarge and modernize our military, the mantra was "government is the problem" and "starve the beast" and "deficits don't matter." Welcome, but get your facts straight and don't overreact to destroy a fragile economic recovery. Note that revenues have been starved by historically low tax rates (similar to the 1920s), the annual budget deficits have been SHRINKING as a proportion of GDP in the past four years (despite what you hear in the echo chamber). Government employment is down and private sector employment is up, federal spending has been pretty level despite an aging population and aging infrastructure. Clearly we are on a better trajectory than we were coming off the "Great Recession." Don't forget we've been fighting the longest war in American history while cutting taxes - we never tried that before. This is not the time to shoot ourselves in the foot. Getting the economy back on track is the single best way to reduce the long term debt at this point. Welcome, let's continue to adjust course without taking a nose dive.



Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30033 02/28/13 08:51 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Why have revenues been straved? They increased after the tax cuts early in the last decade, as they did after cuts in the '20s, '60s and '80s after similar cuts. Revenues decreased because of a decrease in economy activity. The deficit as percentage of GDP is projected to go lower...the word is predicted. I don't know how you get to 6% of GDP this year when economy growth is .1% this past quarter, as reported this morning.

To me, this is all circus. A game that everyone plays along. We have a spending problem. 25% of GDP sending is a problem. Europe is the wake up call everyone wants to ignore.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30034 02/28/13 09:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Sierra, just to be clear, and so we're using the correct terminology, this graph represents the annual budget deficit trend over several years. In your post in the photos section, you have it labeled as the debt trend. Two totally different animals.

The annual deficit spending - which adds to the national debt each year - has been decreasing as a percentage of GDP since the huge TARP payouts in 2009 and 2010 and subsequent repayments. The national debt, however, even as a percentage of GDP, is still heading steadily upwards as a result of deficit spending, and is close to the New Deal/WWII level that represents the high water mark of the country's modern debt history.

We have made the effort to pay down our national debt in only 4 of the last 40-plus years, and have depended on GDP outpacing debt to provide almost all of the relief seen in these lovely graphs that are so popular. Call me a pessimist (I prefer realist), but I have little to no confidence that we can reel off another 30-year run of economic prosperity (a la 1949-1979) to hammer the debt ratio down to manageable levels.

Your point is well taken though. The only hope we have of keeping our heads above water is to ensure the economy continues to grow and unemployment continues to decline. Balancing the annual budget would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. The scary thing to me is that we are currently in a very tenuous position: we are almost at historic highs for debt-to-GDP while nursing along a fragile recovery in a shaken-up, battered world. Another poorly-timed terrorist event or economic bubble bursting could plunge us over into debt territory we've never imagined.

And, on topic, I'd certainly be willing to pay more to enjoy the national parks and forests if necessary to keep them maintained and staffed properly. It costs upwards of $300 for a family of four to spend a day in one of the country's big theme parks (some places, a lot more). There's not a Disney, Universal, or MGM that can hold a candle to Yosemite, the Rocky Mountains, or the Grand Canyon.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bulldog34 #30045 02/28/13 08:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Not that it's not true, but I wish these guys would learn to write:

February 26, 2013

Memorandum

To: All National Park Service Employees

From: Director /s/ Jonathan B. Jarvis

Subject: Update on Preparations for Potential Sequestration

While there is a slim possibility that Congress will reach an agreement that eliminates the need for sequestration and the senseless, across-the-board budget cuts that it will impose, with the March 1 deadline only days away we must finalize our plans, be ready to implement them, and prepare for the resulting impacts on our visitors, our partners, our parks and programs, and on each and every employee.

Sequestration requires the National Park Service to take a five percent – $134 million – reduction in the funds we expected, and it must happen in the remaining seven months of this fiscal year. We have few options and even less flexibility. No park or program is immune, and each was required to submit a plan of how the cut would be taken and the impacts that would result. This was a tough assignment and I appreciate everyone stepping up to get it done. A review of the plans Service-wide offers a grim reality of how we will have to reduce the level of direct services we provide to the American people in parks and communities across the country. There will be wide-ranging and long-term consequences. And there will be – and already have been – negative impacts across our entire workforce. While plans are still be finalized, we expect the following to happen:

All 25,000 National Park Service employees will face challenges in performing your job. Because we are just as dedicated to the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars as we are to the stewardship of their parks, we have been prudent about spending since the start of the fiscal year. Since October 1, we have delayed filling many vacant permanent jobs and reduced travel and other expenses. Secretary Salazar has implemented a Department-wide hiring freeze as well as given direction to reduce overtime, travel, training, contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants and eliminate conference attendance. I want to emphasize to you that keeping positions vacant is not a sustainable strategy; it cripples our ability to meet mission responsibilities – from providing education programs to kids, to coordinating wildlife research, to managing museum collections – and it increases the burden on remaining staff that take on additional critical work that cannot go undone.

Furloughs of Permanent Employees. We are still finalizing our plans and assessing whether furloughs of NPS permanent employees will be required. Across the Department of the Interior, it is expected that thousands of permanent employees will be furloughed for up to 22 work days. In the unfortunate event it comes to furloughs, all affected employees will be provided at least 30 days notice or in accordance with the designated representative collective bargaining agreement, as appropriate. We continue to engage in discussions with employee unions to ensure that any furloughs are applied in an appropriate manner meeting agency mission requirements. If you have questions on this issue, I encourage you to go to the Office of Personnel Management website, which has helpful information and answers to frequently asked questions regarding furloughs (found at www.opm.gov/furlough, under the "administrative furlough” section).

Seasonal employees will be furloughed, have delayed starts, shortened employment periods, or will not be hired at all. We lose our utility infielders. Our seasonal workforce is the "bench” we turn to when fires break out, search and rescue operations are underway, and every other collateral duty in the world needs doing. Many of these folks return year after year; they are the repositories of amazing institutional knowledge for the park...and our visitors. The sequestration will hit just as many parks are gearing up to hire seasonals. In some parks, like Yellowstone, the impact has already started; those who would normally be getting ready to plow roads for the spring season are on hold and the opening of the park could be delayed up to a month. All seasonal employees that are furloughed will be provided at least 30 days notice.

We will be unable to hire the number of students that we had planned – halting the progress on youth hiring of the last four years. Students are a vital part of our workforce today and integral to the National Park workforce of tomorrow. Sequestration will mean that we will be unable to meet our youth hiring goals. We also expect significant reductions to cooperative agreements with partners that fund youth work crews and are the foundation for our vision of a 21st Century Conservation Corps. Our inability to hire students and enter into cooperative agreements will have lasting impacts as these young people are forced to find work elsewhere and ultimately may make different career choices.

Sequestration will have long-term and wide-ranging effects.

1. Economic. Reduced services and access will make families planning summer vacations think twice about coming to a national park. A drop in visitation could have devastating effects on the economies of gateway communities who depend on visitor spending and shut down park lodging, food, and other services provided by concessioners who support 25,000 jobs. Just today we announced that visitor spending in 2011 pumped $30 billion into the national economy that supported 252,000 jobs.

2. Unfunded Community Projects. Our commitment to states and communities will be jeopardized by $2.4 million in cuts to NPS grants to states to support local recreation, $1.9 million to support historic preservation, and $500,000 in technical assistance offered by RTCA.

3. Resources at Risk. Our capacity to respond to new threats from invasive species will be cut in half and previous investments in eradication will be endangered; at Yosemite, more than $2.5 million spent in recent years to remove/control aggressive species as yellow star thistle, Italian thistle and Himalayan blackberry will be wasted if those plants reestablish their hold and increase their threat to native ecosystems. Water quality testing will be reduced in as many as 55 parks. At Redwood, the inability to fill the park's hydrologic technician position will lead to a degradation of the park's long-term hydrologic record. The park will be unable to collect water quality data that supports Clean Water Act Section 303(d) monitoring and directives from Congress contained in the 1978 Redwood Act. Ford's Theatre will lack the curatorial capacity to manage its collection of over 14,000 artifacts relating to President Lincoln and the management, preservation, and documentation of these objects and documents would be jeopardized.

If sequestration happens, I want you to know that I will be doing everything possible to mitigate its effects on our mission and on you and your families. Over the next several days it may be difficult to sort through what is fact and what is rumor. Your entire National Park Service leadership team in Washington, in the regions, and in parks, is committed to making sure that you have accurate and timely information as we know it.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30046 02/28/13 08:59 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
In response to economic and political discussions on WZ, I would like to say

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30047 02/28/13 09:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: George
Sequestration requires the National Park Service to take a five percent – $134 million – reduction in the funds we expected, and it must happen in the remaining seven months of this fiscal year.

To repeat (Yosemite alone): Yosemite National Park Tourism Creates Over $379 Million In Local Economic Benefit

Cognitive dissonance? Anyone? Duh??


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30048 02/28/13 09:27 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: tdtz
In response to economic and political discussions on WZ, I would like to say


....and no comment required.

I sort of got into the habit of getting more than nervous when the system showed signs of avalanche breakdown, because I have lived in places where you just could not ignore the outcome of governmental cave-in (the most annoying was when the borders/boundary lines would change, and The Man would show up at the door and show you the way out)


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bulldog34 #30049 02/28/13 10:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Bulldog, nice intelligent reply. I concur with you that we have a national debt problem and it is serious. I've been harping about this for about 30 years, which is why I say "Welcome" to those who are finally paying attention. Now let's be real about dealing with this problem logically vs trying to bring down a President at all costs.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30054 03/01/13 09:20 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
George,

Republicans in the senate have said they would agree to give Mr. Obama the ability to make targeted cuts, he threatened veto.

Mr. Obama wants more taxes this is his way trying to do it. You don't eliminate crappy inefficient programs, you cut back the visual programs that will get pain on the 11 PM news and in the compliant print media.

This is circus.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30056 03/01/13 11:16 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
Left coaster Pelosi :

"I think some people may have thought sequester meant 'shut down of government.' No it means more like 'hold hostage all the things you care about so we can have across-the-board cuts'."

What's wrong with across-the-board cuts?
They are much better than continuing or increasing all the entitled and out-of-control giveaways that the Dems and their sanctimonious President refuse to cut.

There is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for it.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30058 03/01/13 01:04 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30062 03/01/13 05:06 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
Overall, I think all the posts here have been respectful and on topic, for the most part. Not sure if several of the above posts fit into that category.

There are people here who align their thinking with both of the major parties. Making less than respectful comments about one particular party's agenda / representative is just going to inflame people with opposite views. Lets leave those comments to the commentators who make money playing to their fans.

I hope everyone understands: This is a really tough time, and everyone's list of crappy inefficient programs and out-of-control giveaways is going to be all over the spectrum.

Thanks.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30065 03/01/13 06:21 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Steve, I think it's the board's version of cabin fever. It's that time of year.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bulldog34 #30068 03/01/13 07:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Done.

Without comment...



Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30076 03/02/13 12:28 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
Open the window, stick your head out and yell... mad eek mad

Thanks wagga, I needed that.

Best five minutes today. Happy Sequester Friday!


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30083 03/02/13 11:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
OK. This is a little better presented by NPS Director Jarvis:

http://goo.gl/8DdTT



None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30087 03/02/13 02:31 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Director Jarvis comes across like an intelligent hard working person who might actually contribute to society, but we know that can be true, he's part of our government, one of those "takers" milking us tax payers.

If you look really close in the background, I think I see one of those 2010 protest signs, "Keep the government out of our National Parks!" next to the, "Keep the government out of our Medicare" sign. shocked

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30093 03/03/13 10:50 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Wagga

Grazie! Grazie!! That (and Hospital) is one of the great movie moments.

Jarvis' live comment was more interesting and better said than what seemed like a flack-written memo aimed less towards employees (which is who it went to) than the press. Part of the problem with this sequestration is that it's not a sudden loss of jobs, credit etc., it's a slow moving train wreck. So there's no dramatic "closed" sign for people to get upset and start writing their representatives.

Wbtravis is right that it's a circus. But how do you get people to realize that this is important and will have long-term consequences? Some years ago, FEMA was drastically cut and leadership turned over to patronage positions. This was not a problem until there was a disaster and the critical nature of federal emergency response and support was dramatically shown. To a certain extent, I'm sympathetic to tdz on a discussion of economics/budget in the outdoorsy pages of this forum, but you can't separate the future of our collective access and enjoyment of places like, say, Reflection Lake from what's going on in these endless budget crisis.

Everyone says to "cut government spending" but when asked about specifics, they actually support raising spending for almost every service that government offers. Everyone says cut waste and tax loopholes but seem unwilling to actually do it. Except for a small but determined band of tea party types, government is important (well until you try interfere with their medicare and SS...).

California went through this exact sequence over the last several years. (Yes, the "left coast" -- is that really helpful to a discussion?). After 2 years of shortened hours for government services, layoffs of teachers, police and fire, a stagnant economy etc., voters supported a temporary raise in taxes. In the process, the republican party -- who had uncompromisingly opposed any budget discussion that involved raising revenue -- saw their registration go down to 26%, lose both houses and have no representatives in higher office in the state. They were ultimately seen as the party of "no" and unhelpful to meaningful reform.

We see the exact same response at the federal level:
http://goo.gl/nifyh

So, absolutely correct that there is no free lunch, but people want government services and, as Bulldog and others here say, are willing to pay parks a little more to get them.

Wbtracis is again right that "Europe is the wake up call everyone wants to ignore" but the lesson is that ignoring the importance of government spending in the midst of a serious recession just makes things far worse. Arguably, you can and should find ways to eventually reduce some types of projected government spending (e.g. medicare & SS), but to cut services & jobs in a recession is disastrous:

www.businessinsider.com/european-economic-disaster-2013-3

Which is all to say that a discussion anywhere on the importance of government in our day to day lives -- and how to pay for it -- is, however boring or controversial, an important one to have.


George
Public Servant


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30094 03/03/13 07:34 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Well, George, thank you. Least I could do.

It seems to me that the NPS is being punished for doing an honest job with the funds available - i.e. being efficient. As far as I can tell, the Park Service has very little fat, and, because the bigger parks bring in tourist dollars, are in reality self-supporting.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30099 03/04/13 09:03 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
George,

FDR doubled the size of the federal government in his first term...the result...the Depression of 1937.

Obama got his trillion and his administration said unemployment would not exceed 8%...the result was over 10% unemployment rate and lowering of the labor participation rate. I don't care what the unemployment rate is there are less people working today that 4 years ago with a larger population. If you call that a success, I would like to know what failure looks like.

The federal government is spending 25% of GDP. Mr. Obama does not want a tax increase to reduce the deficit but to increase the size and scope of government beyond what it is today.

So, don't tell me spending what we don't have works...it did not in 1933 or in 2009.





Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30101 03/04/13 10:02 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Hee-hee. I love Travis's material. Very creative. I wonder if he writes it himself. Cucamonga is pretty close to Hollywood, and always a great source of humor. Keep it up, man, you kill.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30102 03/04/13 12:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 849
Likes: 3
Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 849
Likes: 3
Get them bail-out bags aka "bug-out bags" ready...



We got ours ready...


Journey well...
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30103 03/04/13 01:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Quote:
It seems to me that the NPS is being punished for doing an honest job with the funds available - i.e. being efficient. As far as I can tell, the Park Service has very little fat, and, because the bigger parks bring in tourist dollars, are in reality self-supporting.


I like to think so. I don't see much sign of huge waste in NPS. It's a common complaint among those of us below decks to say that we're top-heavy with middle managers; creeping in of specialty positions (I'll, um, not name names...) & etc. I think there's definitely some truth in that but it only shows up as a drain when we get into these cat fights over money. And, of course, those aren't the positions that get cut. One guess on who does get cut to save money?

I'm less sure of my facts, but believe this is what's happened to USFS over the years. Growing management & specialist positions and decreasing field people. As a result, not as much trail work; cleaning camps and taking care of wilderness & backcountry.

In another life, I'm Prez of one of our ranger organizations (Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police). When a clueless Congressman grumped about complaints of cuts in NPS, he said: "They just have to do more with less" one of our members said "no, I'm going to do less with less." At a certain point, you just get tired of putting in unpaid hours because there's no budget and some things just have to be done. Like teachers, I doubt there's a single ranger who doesn't put in at least a couple of hours of unpaid work each week -- whether it's finishing a report at home; coming in for training on a day off or just answering visitor questions on the way out the door.

Getting paid in sunsets is the old cliche, though it's used only ironically nowadays. Most of us want to get paid in, well, money... .



None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30104 03/04/13 01:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Ah, I see Mr. Travis using the always reliable Herbert Hoover Playbook! I think this is where Santayana's classic: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" comes in. A teensy bit arcane (and only if you can stand yet another -- auugggghhhhh! -- Krugman reference) re 1937:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/a-global-1937/


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30105 03/04/13 02:37 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Was it also Santayana who said "Those who cannot remember the past, feel free to make something up?"


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30108 03/04/13 04:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past, feel free to make something up?"


Heh, heh... Too bad there's not a like button around here. I think he said it about [and here there's a Strangelove struggle between my hands, the keyboard and good sense] Fox news. I'll cheerfully take all the brickbats thrown at me for such a nakedly biased comment. But I think ironic good humor should count for something, even across party lines, shouldn't it?


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30109 03/04/13 05:03 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted By: George
Quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past, feel free to make something up?"


Heh, heh... Too bad there's not a like button around here. I think he said it about [and here there's a Strangelove struggle between my hands, the keyboard and good sense] Fox news. I'll cheerfully take all the brickbats thrown at me for such a nakedly biased comment. But I think ironic good humor should count for something, even across party lines, shouldn't it?

Absolutely. And I wouldn't call it "biased" at all. I would call it a well-reasoned evidence-based conclusion. Share the brickbats.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30110 03/04/13 05:17 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
I am surprised that Steve has not locked this thread.

There are a lot of things that do not pass the smell test. Having been in private business for 31 years, I have seen my business rise and fall for years at a time by 10%, 20%, yes even 100%. To say that the government and the larger economy cannot live on a 2% cut is laughable. I am sorry if that 2% hurts George or any other loyal and good government employee. But what many of us see is waste on both sides of the aisle. No I am not a tea party person.

It would be interesting (but probably futile) to see if ones viewpoint could be explained by age, occupation, whether or not he or she ever slaughtered a pig, was thin or fat, straight or gay, actually worked with prisoners vs reading about them, went to college, had a two-parent family, lived in an Ivory Tower or a trailer park, worked in the non-profit sector, drove a truck, etc, etc.

I guess the only thing totally in common with all of us here is that we love the mountains. It has been said that at a family reunion, one should not talk about religion, politics, or child-rearing practices.

As for our various political leanings.... here comes a quote... one might paraphrase this one from religion to politics:

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."








Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30111 03/04/13 05:40 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
I strongly weigh(ed) in to keep the thread open. It is my beelief that this great collection of intelligence, experience, & and in many cases, wisdom brought from age is too valuable to shut down just because we don't have all the answers, and we cannot convince anyone but ourselves what the solutions are (well, I think that George and I could form "team Krugman"...JUST KIDDING!!! sort of..)

We NEED to bee talking about this and many other issues that will eventually wreck havoc in our lives, whether or not it directly relates to Whitney or hiking( because eventually it will)


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30112 03/04/13 06:55 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted By: Harvey Lankford
To say that the government and the larger economy cannot live on a 2% cut is laughable.


That may be why nobody is saying it.

Sorry, Harvey, but that's a false argument. Sure the government or the larger economy can survive a cut. I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise, But that's not the issue. The government and the larger economy are not monoliths, all parts of which stand or fall together. They have component parts, some with plenty of fat and some with barely enough muscle and bone now to survive. And we're talking about a couple of those already starving components, not the whole. Some agencies' budgets would hardly feel a 10 percent cut, some would bleed to death from a 1 percent nick.

So what is easier for us mountain lovers to give up: a Ranger's annual salary or one hour's flight time for an F-22? The dollar price is the same.



Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30113 03/04/13 07:25 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
and therein lies the problem - who gets cut?


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30115 03/04/13 07:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30119 03/04/13 10:43 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted By: Harvey Lankford
and therein lies the problem - who gets cut?


No, that's still not the problem. The problem is that everybody gets cut, but the one who is too fat to begin with just bleeds a little, and the one who was already lean and mean dies.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30121 03/05/13 07:10 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6

yes, as a result of not being able to agree on how to raise revenue, or make decreases in which expenditures, or both, either side claiming the moral high ground with other peoples money. Every recipient program will claim it is lean, or needy, or indispensible. Agreed, some fit the description better than others. Way too many, not at all.


should we start our own list of biased expenditures that we want their budgets:

protected or increased: National Park Service

decreased: everything else



Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30123 03/05/13 08:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
I'd also support Bee's thought that this should be continued. There's no real animosity -- an occasional shot, but no serious damage. Absent name calling, it should probably just be allowed to die a natural death.

And I'm actually learning a few things, though not in the intended way. As noted, my econ background is weak, so looking this stuff up is actually good for me. For instance, I knew little about the actual economics of the Great Depression (though had just finished The Worst Hard Time). So Travis' comment about '37 got me doing a small bit of research. The point of theory, as I said earlier, is it has to be testable or predictive and upheld by actual experience. Contrary to Travis' point, the second dip in the 30s actually confirms a relationship between government spending, economic recovery and unemployment. We apparently didn't learn what, for a long time, was a well-understood lesson. Everyone seems to forget that even Reagan increased gov't spending more than Obama during his recession.

And tdtz' link is a good example of the good humored irony we should all strive for. It's utterly wrong, of course, though really well done. The analogy between a family budget and a government with its own currency doesn't hold, but I'll spare everyone a reference. There's lots.

And it all does keep coming back to Harvey's who gets cut? Though I'd add where and how do we get extra revenue? There is no way we can cut domestic programs anywhere near what's needed to cover projected problems with SS & Medicare 20 and 30 years out. Back to the pie chart -- that was accurate in the relative size of the sequestration cuts and its effect on budget, debt and deficit. Almost negligible. A lot of pain and risk for a negligible effect.

Oh, ps: Good one saltydog one hour of F-22 vs. ranger's salary: spot on! I didn't know that.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30124 03/05/13 08:32 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Whether state or federal, there is a reason that the jobs that are put on the chopping blocks are the popular services. You'll always see teachers, police, fire and yes, NFS/NPS on the chopping block. But you never see the bureaucratic institutions on the chopping block. The reason is obvious. Nobody could give a crap about some mindless drone in Washington D.C. whose job was created as a form of welfare. Nobody will fight to keep a guy employed who doesn't really provide a meaningful service. But for big government advocates, those jobs are key. Those jobs are votes in favor of big government.

But if you target the jobs where an actual meaningful service is provided, then everybody gets their hackles raised and fights to avoid any cuts in spending.

I want George to keep his job, but I don't want the guy who is in charge of setting up trade missions with Botswana and Zambia to keep his job. (I use that example because I am actually having to deal with that right now).

We are all being manipulated with the headlines of longer lines at the airport (HA!!! there's no way they can be longer. The TSA is already a bloated agency that keeps lanes closed even when with agents standing around doing nothing). Teachers losing jobs, Yosemite being closed.

The simple fact is, our government, regardless of whichever party is in power, is out of control with spending. It is time that we required our government to follow the same economic policies that are expected of us as individuals.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30125 03/05/13 08:41 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
And tdtz' link is a good example of the good humored irony we should all strive for. It's utterly wrong, of course, though really well done. The analogy between a family budget and a government with its own currency doesn't hold, but I'll spare everyone a reference. There's lots.

Saying that it is utterly wrong does not make it so. Sure the federal government has its own currency. Why do you think that means that we can print our way out of an economic mess. If printing (inflating) money supply solved the problem, then why not just go crazy with the printing press? (it's really a virtual printing press, money supply is actually increased through lower interest rates that allow money to be loaned repeatedly).

Yes, you are right, we will never have to pay an actual debt. What will happen is that we will devalue our currency and pay off those t-bills with worthless paper. But in the process of devaluing our currency it takes more of our worthless paper to buy actual goods and services. Things like food, energy and housing will cost more because our dollar is worth less. We may not get the bill for all of this economic irresponsibility, but we will definitely pay.

There are no shortcuts with fancy economic theories. It's simple math. And the same economic principles that apply to individuals also apply to governments.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30126 03/05/13 10:03 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: tdtz
we will devalue our currency

OFFICIALLY DEVALUED

ie, pay back todays high debt with tomorrows cheaper dollars

that is what I am afraid of, just what Mexico did in 1994.

My brother and I talk about this all the time. I am 62, he is 64, we do not take SS yet, but the fear is that one day our personal savings and retirement plans will be worth 50% less. Wake up one morning and overnite you have been ruined by your own governments fiscal and fiduciary irresponsibility. When it happens, it will not be the stated goal of "wealth redistribution" but it will be the storm tide that lowers all boats.

Interesting... the stock market doesn't seem to mind what is going on. They do not seem to be as fearful as my statements above.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30128 03/05/13 10:45 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
"Interesting... the stock market doesn't seem to mind what is going on. They do not seem to be as fearful as my statements above."

International investment money loves a weak dollar.

The dollar actually had a strong month in February, but it's looking like it is going to top out right about....now. Meanwhile, during the dollar rally, the stockmarket was essentially flat.

If the dollar weakens in the coming months, I would expect an epic rally in the stock market. Which will, of course, be followed by a pretty brutal correction.

there's no question that the intent is to inflate our way out of debt. In the process we will make ourselves poorer and we will piss off some really powerful debt holders.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30129 03/05/13 11:54 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Interesting graphic from Media Matters


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30130 03/05/13 12:56 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Interesting graphic from Media Matters

Hmmm... Here's the image, as posted on Facebook:



Can someone find a link to the discussion of the info?


mediamatters.org had a Limbaugh statement that I followed to the audio link... Limbaugh: Any Future Positive Economic Numbers Under Obama Are "Fake" He was pretty confused by a caller's question, but what he said in response made me laugh.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30131 03/05/13 01:16 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Federal deficit can shrink and the debt will still increase. Does anybody know why that is true?

There is a reason why many in our government wanted the debt limit raised even with declining rate of deficit spending.

But when you start talking big numbers, it isn't unusual for rates of change to decrease. That is why big companies start to have slower growth. The actual numbers are still big, but the percentage decreases.

It's probably not a bad thing for the folks at media matters to read up a bit on the difference between deficit and debt. Two different animals altogether.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30132 03/05/13 02:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
I'll see your MediaMatters and raise you a Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...ful-As-Possible

An internal government email sent Monday instructed an official with a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make sure that sequester-related cuts inflict as much pain as possible to make sure "you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30134 03/05/13 04:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Originally Posted By: tdtz
It's probably not a bad thing for the folks at media matters to read up a bit on the difference between deficit and debt. Two different animals altogether.


That's an issue I mentioned earlier, Tom. The average Joe-on-the-street doesn't know the difference between the deficit and the debt - and you better believe the media and spinmeisters know it.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30135 03/05/13 05:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
tdtz: I'm always a little leery of these memos that show up in the conservative press. It's not impossible and could be that some departments are toeing what they see as a company line, but I doubt it's very widespread.

I know there's now a hiring freeze in NPS. That's for both permanent and seasonal. The hope, of course, is that it's just temporary until they get budgets figured out but this is now the main hiring season for us summer workers -- the majority of field staff in summer. Also, to correct a comment above, the cut is not 2%. Because the cuts are hitting halfway through the fiscal year (which ends on Sept. 30th for the government) it's at least 5% and actually higher in many cases.

Anyway, if we seasonal types are not there, and not hired in a timely manner before some take other jobs, then a logical conclusion is some areas would have to be closed because there's not staff to handle restroom cleaning, operating campgrounds, emergency response etc. My guess is that some areas may cut right now and try to save for when they feel the need is higher later on. For instance, the White House (operated by NPS) stopped giving tours for the moment. As I said, this is a slow moving train wreck.

If anyone can stand yet another reference, there's actually a fairly good -- and mostly civil -- discussion between Krugman and Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe -- never heard of him before last week) on CharlieRose.com. Pretty good explanation of both sides of the debate; the difference between debt and deficit; why spending cuts now are a bad idea (and Scarborough seems to agree with this); projections for SS & Medicare debt and why they're important -- or not. I actually didn't see all that much difference between their two positions. So, since both "sides" are well represented, I think it could serve as the semi-last word -- in the factual debate here anyway.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30139 03/05/13 09:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
George,
The NPS is part of the Department of the Interior. The budge for the Department of the Interior barely registers on the budget. The whole Department of the Interior has a budget of about $12B. The total amount of the budget cuts is a minuscule $85B. You could cut the entire Department of the Interior budge and still have to find another $73B in cuts.

So why is our government targeting the NPS for cuts? The answer is simple, it is visible.

You can check my numbers. It's all out there on the internet. You don't even need to go to conservative media sources. Go the the government websites.

Health and Human Services has a massive budget. Minor cuts in that department would cover the whole $85B. Hell, split the cuts between the DoD and HHS and we barely have a ripple effect on government jobs. Throw in some cuts from the Department of Education and Department of Labor, where the federal government shouldn't even be playing and we can double the cuts and nobody would know the difference.

But instead, we are going to go for the TSA and NPS...seriously, it's important to know when you are being manipulated. And this is one of those times.

BTW: there are more than two sides to this. Especially if both sides agree that cutting spending is a bad idea.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30140 03/06/13 09:52 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted By: saltydog
Hee-hee. I love Travis's material. Very creative. I wonder if he writes it himself. Cucamonga is pretty close to Hollywood, and always a great source of humor. Keep it up, man, you kill.


Now Salty Dog, what have I written that is not factually correct?

FDR did double the size of the federal government in 4 years. The Depression of 1937 did happen.

Tax rates were reduced in the 4 decades mentioned the end result were increased revenues to the federal government.

The sequester reduces the increase in new spending but doesn't cut TY over LY spending. In other words we will spend $15bn more rather than $100bn in 2013.

I know it is easier to be a wise-ass than to tell where I am wrong.

What did Morgenthau say about the New Deal..."We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Oh, that is Secretary of the Treasury's testimony before congress.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30141 03/06/13 10:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted By: George
Ah, I see Mr. Travis using the always reliable Herbert Hoover Playbook! I think this is where Santayana's classic: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" comes in. A teensy bit arcane (and only if you can stand yet another -- auugggghhhhh! -- Krugman reference) re 1937:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/a-global-1937/


I've read Krugman on 1937 and 2009 in the past and find his argument politically stupid. You just doubled the size of government during a depression over a four year period...try that one today. Just few more dollars and it everything would have worked. The fact is he has no proof that it would have worked because the money was not allocated.

What is the reliable Hoover Playbook? Tell me because I don't know what you are talking about.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30149 03/06/13 10:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
If the number of government employees measures the size of government, and I assume we all want government to be as small as possible, then Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama should be your favorites. They all CUT the number of federal nonmilitary employees according to the Office of Personnel Management. Despite the rhetoric and mantra fed to you, Reagan increased federal nonmilitary employees by 230,000 1980-1988 and he started this country on a steep budget deficit trajectory. Bush Jr increased fed staff by about 50,000. By contrast, Clinton reduced the size of government by almost 400,000 federal nonmilitary employees during his 8 years. The government now has about 300,000 FEWER employees under Obama then in 1988 when Reagan left office. If you're looking for an economic model that reduces government, balances budgets, and leads to the largest economic expansion in US history, then follow what Clinton did. Unfortunately, it requires a balanced approach founded in arithmetic, not dogma founded on wishful thinking.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30151 03/07/13 12:57 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
everybody loves Clinton. Everybody remembers the boom of the 90s and give him credit for it. Everybody forgets what happened 13 years ago today...and that is that the equities market topped out. They forget that six weeks later, the equities market crashed and crashed hard. This was all under Clinton's watch.

Now, I'm not a big Bush fan as he was a big government guy too, but when you look at all of the slack cut for our current president based on "we inherited a mess", you have to say the same thing for Bush. Clinton left Bush a mess that makes the mess that Obama inherited look like a simple bounced check.

Government interventionalist policies have unintended consequences. They cause the normal economic cycles to become exaggerated. They increase the amplitude of the cycles and decrease the period.

And just to be clear, there hasn't been a free market in this country in many years. Both sides are guilty of putting us in the economic situation we are currently in. And it isn't good, no matter how hard the starry eyed believers want it to be so.

If presidents get credit for economic conditions, then Clinton deserves the greatest amount of blame for our current situation.

Last edited by tdtz; 03/07/13 12:57 AM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30154 03/07/13 08:02 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
So we shouldn't look back 4 years to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Instead, lets look back 14 years to the dot com bubble and blame that president.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30156 03/07/13 09:21 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 464
Likes: 1
R
Offline
R
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 464
Likes: 1
Typical political rhetoric. Never ending - I'm right, you're wrong. Maybe when spring is here we'll be talking about hiking.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RenoFrank #30157 03/07/13 09:38 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: RenoFrank
Typical political rhetoric. Never ending - I'm right, you're wrong. Maybe when spring is here we'll be talking about hiking.


Yes. Maybe once spring is here all of this will magically go away, won't interfere with our plans, and all of our favorite destinations will be open & ready to explore. (and we can all wave to George as we file down the JMT)


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30161 03/07/13 03:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
So we shouldn't look back 4 years to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Instead, lets look back 14 years to the dot com bubble and blame that president.


If you have ever driven in the snow and gone into a slide/skid and over corrected and put the car even further out of control, you can draw the parallel to economic cycles.

I made a point to identify both parties as guilty of detrimental market intervention. You brought up Clinton. If you give him credit for the boom of the 90s, you have to give him blame for the bust. There was a very nice economic cycle during the Bush administration that most people seem to forget. Of course, the Bush Administration and Congress over-steered in their response to the dotcom implosion and created yet another bubble that inevitably had to pop.

My argument is intellectually consistent across political parties. Can you say the same for yours?

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
RenoFrank #30162 03/07/13 03:55 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Typical political rhetoric. Never ending - I'm right, you're wrong. Maybe when spring is here we'll be talking about hiking.


Frankly (pun intended), I think it is insane to encourage political discussions on WZ. And I kept out of this one until I saw that there was a strong argument to keep this thread alive.

Meanwhile, I have never climbed in the whitney zone in March or April, so I am going to plan a day trip up in both months just to add those months to my whitney diary (I have been in the WZ in June, July, August, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec and Jan).


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30165 03/07/13 06:14 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Stolen from a sister forum:

Dear Yosemite Community Members and Partners:

We wanted to keep you informed as we begin to feel the impacts of the March 1 sequestration just enacted. Sequestration and resulting budget cuts will have an effect on park operations and we want to keep you informed.

First and foremost, it is the park's goal to keep you updated as this situation evolves and we receive additional guidance and direction from Washington and the regional office. At this time, we want to pass on to you several pieces of news.

With respect to the National Park Service (NPS), the sequestration calls for a 5% cut in the operating budget funds of each park; in the case of Yosemite, this represents a cut of $1.4 million in base operations. Though our park will have to cut this amount, we will not have to furlough any permanent employees. Basically, we are absorbing most of the budget cuts by lapsing positions. This budget cut will result in fewer ranger programs, reductions in resource programs, and elimination of some services from our Facilities Division. There will also be some effects on our seasonal workforce, whose contribution we heavily depend on during peak visitation throughout the summer.

Last week, Director Jarvis also indicated that a hiring freeze is now in place in NPS for both permanents and seasonals and that only mission critical travel should be undertaken; all other travel is canceled until further notice.

The Washington Office is now seeking an exemption from the hiring freeze for all seasonal hiring, including base funded seasonal positions that were included in the park's sequestration plan. We hope to receive this exemption this week. With this exemption, we anticipate filling many of our seasonal positions in preparation for the summer season.

At this point in time, all Yosemite facilities remain open with normal operating hours. However, we will continue to evaluate the impacts of not filling the vacancies identified discussed on park operations and programs and make adjustments as necessary. Since our park partners are private entities and not government funded, services provided by them will not be affected by the sequester and will continue normal operations.

In the meantime, I want to personally thank you for your continued commitment to Yosemite during these uncertainties and hope you will reach out to me or others in the park if you have additional questions. We hope you understand we are doing everything possible to limit impacts to visitors and our employees.

Don Neubacher, on behalf of the Executive Leadership Team

Thank you, eeek.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30166 03/07/13 06:23 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Quote:
Typical political rhetoric. Never ending - I'm right, you're wrong. Maybe when spring is here we'll be talking about hiking.


Frankly (pun intended), I think it is insane to encourage political discussions on WZ. And I kept out of this one until I saw that there was a strong argument to keep this thread alive.

Meanwhile, I have never climbed in the whitney zone in March or April, so I am going to plan a day trip up in both months just to add those months to my whitney diary (I have been in the WZ in June, July, August, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec and Jan).



There are plenty of threads (or start a new one) to talk about any and all trip plans (definitely welcome conversation) but there is no need to flush this thread. It is one of the great priviledges of this country that we CAN talk about what we do not agree with regarding our government (especially when it DOES relate to the parks that we love so much), and in many cases, a movement is started and change follows. How convenient for all if we would just bag this insantiy, shut up, keep our heads down, and settle for whatever is handed down.


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #30167 03/07/13 07:03 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Bee
...and in many cases, a movement is started and change follows.

Thank you Bee - did you read my mind?
Look at the NASA petition on We The People. (I signed it)

Here is the White House site.

How about we put our heads together and do our bit to advance the cause of the NPS?

Note:

This country is a representative Republic, and it is our duty to advance the cause of our interests. There is a fondness for NASA activities on the board, but our overarching interest is to protect our Parks.
And there is the detail that the NPS and NASA promote economic activity far in excess of the budget number. That is a great topic for discussion there.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #30168 03/07/13 08:01 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
There are plenty of threads (or start a new one) to talk about any and all trip plans (definitely welcome conversation) but there is no need to flush this thread. It is one of the great priviledges of this country that we CAN talk about what we do not agree with regarding our government (especially when it DOES relate to the parks that we love so much), and in many cases, a movement is started and change follows. How convenient for all if we would just bag this insantiy, shut up, keep our heads down, and settle for whatever is handed down.


My comment about my trips was in direct response to something that was posted in regards to talking about hiking now that spring was here.

As I am certain you understand, the first amendment doesn't apply to a private forum such as this. It is Steve's site and he can say yea or nay on any topic he chooses. And he has obviously said that this one is ok. I think it's a bad idea. And until Steve says that I am not allowed to post that I think it is a bad idea, I have the right to do so.

But let's talk about sequestration and how it applies to the park system. I posted some numbers about the paltry amount of $85B. I posted that the whole budget of the department of the interior is about $11B. The department of health and human services has a budget of about $850B. Why aren't we hearing about a 10% cut in the department of HHS that would take care of that $85B and leave all other government services intact? Why is our government focusing on outward facing services which, in the whole grand scheme of things have meaningless budgets in the first place?

An $85B cut is meaningless and yet it is being touted as a national tragedy where white house tours are cancelled, yosemite is going to close and the lines at the airport are going to be longer. It boils down to a political stunt.

The reason that I think it is crazy to encourage political discussions in this forum is that one's own views tends to blind them from the insults that are being tossed about when the views match their own. So while there have been comments about how the we have kept the "discourse civil" and that we have been "respectful and on topic", you might keep in mind that there are "tea party" types here. And if you go back and read the thread again, you will see that there are quite a few insults thrown around (most of which are completely off base and inaccurate).

So let's talk about legitimate powers of the US Government as defined by the US Constitution.

And let's talk about the fact that the federal government is required to have a budget and yet hasn't done so for several years.

Let's get to the core problem of too damn many entitlement programs sapping the finances of our government while legitimate government services get dumped.

Let's talk about the fact that servicing the interest on our national debt is only behind the DoD and Health and Human Services in real costs to our country and we are adding to the debt with every day that we operate on deficit spending.

All of these thing tie into the cutting of the budget.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30169 03/07/13 09:09 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
I come from a different background than most here, so I will admit that my filters as to when to shut down a thread are always way behind the other moderators (were punches being thrown? Naw, it's not a fight....carry on the "spirited" discussion) I am usually Thor's Hammer when it comes to Trolls -- ahead of the crowd.

I admit that I am taking away a lot of great info (I have looked up many of the $$$ comments & have used the results in further discussions)The queries listed in your post are excellent -- ones that I had not even pondered, yet. Everyone's post reveals yet another layer of the onion (aside from the sniping, which I find distracting)

In the past, I have participated with mass inundations of letters to congress, marches on the state buildings, & I vote, vote, vote. Perhaps I am paranoid....correct: I AM paranoid that someday the population will become disinterested and complascent, and things will get a whole lot worse. I don't want to be the one who shuts down a conversation about the future of the country.


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30170 03/07/13 10:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: tdtz
As I am certain you understand, the first amendment doesn't apply to a private forum such as this. It is Steve's site and he can say yea or nay on any topic he chooses. And he has obviously said that this one is ok. I think it's a bad idea. And until Steve says that I am not allowed to post that I think it is a bad idea, I have the right to do so.


tdtz, we sure try to follow the First Amendment ideals here. How many people would remain here if I or other mods shut down very sensitive topic? It's a good way to kill off a community.

And it's not my site, either. We have a working non-profit organization, with five board members: Myself, Bee, CaT, Mike Condron and Versatile Fred. We keep the paperwork up-to-date with the IRS, the CA Franchise Tax Board and the CA Secretary of State. When it comes to spending our precious contributions, you can be sure the board members agree first, and the money is handled properly. I can assure you I cannot do as I please with this site.

We have four moderators, three have weighed in on this thread and watch it. Of course it is a touchy subject, and it helps that there is a spectrum of opinions and backgrounds represented by different participants. So it keeps bubbling along.

I myself am not one to add much to political discussions, since I grew up watching a family member try to argue politics with too many people, only to see tempers flare and opinions never change. I doubt any opinions of people here will change, either. However, when people present information, and post a link or two to their sources, it helps us all become better educated/more informed on all the issues. And a more informed people is far better than a bunch of "disinterested and complacent" sheep.

As long as individuals don't become too inflammatory, and don't make personal attacks, I think this discussion is beneficial. Please do understand -- I am but one of the moderators, so several people work together before deciding what to limit or shut down.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30171 03/08/13 02:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Can we even balance the budget?


and it is because of this....note the deficit spending
Monthly Treasury Statement
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0113.pdf

Federal outlays - Graphically represented
http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Keynesian Based Economic policies, which have been espoused on this thread, are the root of our current economic situation. Deficit spending during hard economic times is analogous to running up credit card debt when you lose your job. You may get yourself out of hard times in the short term, but eventually you have to pay the piper. Unless you decide to go bankrupt, in which case, it becomes somebody else's problem. And then, who cares, right?

If we practiced keynesian economics in our personal finances we would go to jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30172 03/08/13 05:27 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
We can quote all sorts of statistics forever, and posts links to whatever supports our viewpoint. Some are helpful, some are spoonfeed to us by either side, us sitting biased-to-one-side-or-the-other at our computers. None of these facts (real or made-up) are going to change too many minds.

At some point, one's decision-making is more of a gut feeling, having separated some of the wheat from the chaff. Some of the greatest decisions we ever make in our lives are not based on fact alone, but experience and intuition. Some of us here have real world business experience. Some are likely Ivory Tower. Some just like to argue. I would like to invite everyone here to think about the topic in these terms: does "it" (several "its") pass the smell test? Is "it" the right way to take and redistribute other people's money and when we do, what do we do with it?

I'm not sure the "gut-feeling method" will be more successful than the "fact and pseudo facts" method, but it may help.




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30173 03/08/13 05:32 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Paul Krugman has an interesting piece today in the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinio...130308&_r=0

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30174 03/08/13 06:27 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
One of the commenters is more astute:

"Economics is not a precise science and unscrupulous folks can always pick and choose a model that fits their ideology."

I'd say economists are probably like stock market analysts, most of whom can't beat their respective indices.

choose your favorite
balancing the budget
the practice of medicine
child rearing
choosing an employee
predicting the future
etc, etc

" ___________ is an unending series of arbitrary decisions based on intuition and inadequate facts."



Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30175 03/08/13 08:16 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Mr. Krugman makes so many amateurish mistakes in that piece that I am a little embarrassed for him.

Perhaps the most obvious is that he seems to equate the Dow with the economy. The equities market is a small piece to the economic pie. The bond market is a much larger piece, but even put together they are not "the economy". Sometimes they reflect the economic conditions, sometimes they don't.

He makes the mistake of claiming that workers aren't participating in their own productivity gains through stockmarket activity. The majority of people out there actually do participate in the stock market, even if they don't realize it. Anybody who has a mutual fund or some kind of retirement account is likely to have some mix of stocks and bonds in it. Those evil corporations are funding our collective retirements.

He also makes the mistake in presenting the Dow Industrial average as being indicative of anything. The Dow is 30 hand picked stocks that picked specifically to over perform.

The S&P 500 is testing it's all time high for the third time.
S&P 500 - 1960 to present

The NASDAQ is still only about 66% of it's all time high
NASDAQ 1978 to present

Meanwhile, the New York Composite isn't even close to it's 2007 high.

He's right that wall street pundits can barely predict the weather one hour in advance. But who did wall street support in 2008? Hint Hint, they weren't wearing red.

More later on the Krugman piece. It deserves a spotlight.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30176 03/08/13 08:43 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted By: tdtz
...More later on the Krugman piece. It deserves a spotlight.


It certainly does. He didn't win the Nobel prize because he posted economic gibberish under a pseudonym on an internet BB.

At least there's something I can agree with you on! smile

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30177 03/08/13 09:32 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Quote:
Mr. Krugman makes so many amateurish mistakes in that piece that I am a little embarrassed for him.


Um, I think that at some point you have to reveal some of your own creds. I mean, the guy teaches at Princeton, writes for the NYT (not a shabby thing in itself) and has a Nobel prize**? On Keynes and the current thinking on stimulus vs. austerity, he's in agreement with the majority of economists -- 3 others of whom I can think of offhand with Nobels themselves. But to call him amateurish is pushing it a little unless you're also working at that level.

It's also true that economics is kinda squishy as a science (compared to, say, physics and math) but it (at least Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz et al) insist that models be predictive in nature and that a basic scientific rigor be applied. What he and others keep calling people on is that the predictions made by those advocating austerity -- here and, especially in Europe -- have been wrong. That's wrong, wrong, wrong. The prediction by PK et al was that austerity would put Europe and the UK back into recession and unemployment would increase. That's what happened and, to the extent I understand it, it's basic Keynes.

At no point has he or anyone else said we don't need to deal with so-called entitlements (e.g. SS, medicare). He's only said we don't do it now when we're in a recession. Even the conservative Joe Scarborough now seems to agree the government has to spend now to help the economy.

I mean, we can bandy numbers about all day but I cheerfully admit it's way beyond my grade level, poor but honest Forestry major that I am. The reason I like PK so much is he does tend to agree -- and reinforce -- my wild-eyed radical tendencies (Berkeley '73***) but he (and Reich and even Stiglitz) writes with clarity, humor and brilliant irony (hey, "zombie economics" as a term for discredited ideas that keep coming back whatever the evidence against them? Darned clever). They also use facts from usually reliable government sources (GAO, OMB etc).

So that loops around to a Rumsfeldian what do we know, how do we know it and how do we trust what we know when we know it? And even how and why do we change and evolve in our thinking. It's true we do get into intellectual ruts, often based on our biases and even politics. But much of changing minds is in discussion, presenting what we see as facts and even repeating -- evolving the points as you go and as experience and evidence changes. In that sense, Krugman has been doing a remarkable job. I think his writing has made a major contribution to changing the debate on austerity, the relative importance of federal debt and deficit and the importance of middle class recovery and jobs. Where once what we can call the tea party types dominated the discussion on economics (the deficit will turn our country into Greece!!), increasingly larger segments of chattering class types and politicians have to actually answer the Keynesian model of recovery rather than keep repeating the "family" model as expressed here several times (a model that is simply wrong. Once again, the budget of a family is not the same as that of a government with its own currency: www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html).

For that reason, I'm glad Steve et al haven't pulled the plug. These are discussions about the role of government and the relationship of spending, debt etc. to a country's economy that should be going on everywhere and why not here?

Well, I see our time is up. Tomorrow's assignment is compare and contrast Herbert Hoover's response to a tanking economy with that of FDR and the rise of the Keynes model.

g.

Eeeek. Should we start a battle of footnotes? Wiki entry:

**According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[9]
Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[10][11] liquidity traps, and currency crises. He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[13]


*** Can I also mention that my more conservative grandmother (Berkeley '06) refused to use dimes when FDR's face was put on it? Thus is balance achieved in a turbulent universe.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30178 03/08/13 09:35 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
And, oh yeah, back to the NPS budget:

From: "NTEU Chapter 296 WASO, NPS"
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 15:43:04 -0500
Subject: NTEU update on impact of Sequestration on NPS

Dear fellow WASO Bargaining unit members -

Earlier this afternoon, NPS Director Jarvis spoke to NPS Superintendents and program managers regarding the impact of the government-wide budget Sequestration that goes into effect today. This is a summary of his salient points:
no permanent NPS employees will be furloughed, except in very limited circumstances*
there are @ 1,300 vacant positions - almost all of these will not be filled, unless they are mission critical jobs
regarding seasonal employee hiring - @ 1,000 seasonal employees will not be hired (out of @ 5-6,000 total)
employees subject to furlough - many may be asked to report to duty later than normal
The Director remarked that the NPS was particularly fortunate in regards to being able to avoid furloughs, whereas we are aware of other Bureaus within the Government, and within DOI, which may be forced to furlough staff. He asked that we comport ourselves with compassion and not to act smugly towards these other agencies.

Travel restrictions - Director Jarvis mentioned that he has ordered all travel planned to take place in the month of March cancelled, including his own and that of other 'front office' staff. The only exceptions will be for mission criticaltravel pertaining to health, safety & life-threatening situations.

On Monday, there will be a page on InsideNPS of Q&A posted regarding the impact of the Sequestration on parks, programs and offices. The Director will also be sending out a note on Monday to ALL Employees following up on this call today.

Continuing Resolution - the current C/R runs out on March 27th. When I met with Congressional staff (Ken Cummings - Congressman Van Hollen's senior legislative assistant) this Wednesday, as part of the NTEU Legislative Conference, we learned that Congress is working on a new C/R, but there are no guarantees that a new C/R will be approved, or at what funding level.

The NPS Sequestration plans are contingent upon certain assumptions about what the full year funding will be. Director Jarvis said that the NPS will be asking DOI for blanket approval for seasonal hirings at @ 95% level. If the assumptions turn out to be incorrect, there may have to be changes to the Sequestration plans.

Director Jarvis expressed concerns about the Service's capacity for Search and Rescue, wildland fire management, exotic plant and animal control, and long-term inventory and monitoring. He expressed frustration with "not having the resources to do our jobs." He also mentioned that the Sequester law has provided limited authority to move funding around.

*Union-agency bargaining - Nonetheless, NTEU has invoked its right to bargain with NPS on the impact of sequestration. There may be some small programs or offices where the line-by-line application of the Sequestration law does require staff furloughs.

Next week we will send out a note inviting staff to express any concerns or questions while protecting their anonymity. Employees are encouraged to consider if/how these restrictions affect their annual performance plans.

regards
Rudy


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30179 03/08/13 10:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
It certainly does. He didn't win the Nobel prize because he posted economic gibberish under a pseudonym on an internet BB.


Yup, he posted his economic gibberish in the New York Times.

didn't the nobel committee award a peace price to Yassir Arafat?

Now THERE is a credible organization....LOL

I'm sorry that you consider what I wrote to be gibberish. I am more than happy to expound on what you feel that I failed to properly communicate in my post. I did notice one grammatical error, I do apologize for that. My name is Tom Dietz. I use my full name on the WPS site, but took out a few vowels and a consonant on this site. When you do the search on my name, I'm not the juggler.

But let's try to clear this up, do you consider what I wrote to be gibberish or do you just disagree from where I am coming. Except for the part where I state that he made amateurish mistakes, I don't really see where you can disagree with what I posted. If you do, let's hash it out in a nice healthy debate.

I stated that Krugman made amateurish mistakes and then I backed it up with my case for the assertion. Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? If you can show where my statements are incorrect, then you will discredit me and it will be clear that my assertion that Krugman made amateurish mistakes is incorrect. Don't go for the ad hominem or appeal to authority approach, attack the words and ideas that I put out.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30180 03/08/13 11:03 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Tom:

Oh woe! You're right, my hero not only intellectually bankrupt, but fiscally as well:

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/03/06/paul-krugman-declares-personal-bankruptcy/



None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30181 03/08/13 11:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Um, I think at that point you have to reveal some of your own creds. I mean, the guy teaches at Princeton, writes for the NYT (not a shabby thing in itself) and has a Nobel prize**?


In logic, this is called a fallacious appeal to authority. There is no consensus among experts in the field of economics. If I pull up Ludwig von Mises as my expert, he will completely disagree with Krugman.

I didn't present my credentials because I don't have any meaningful credentials to this subject matter. What I did is make a statement and then provided information to back my statement up.
Like with Kevin, you are welcome to attack what I have written and debunk me based on the content of my post rather than my credentials.

Which are:
I have worked in technology for most of my 32 years in the business world (yes, I started working in technology when I was 18). I worked at Cisco Systems during a big chunk of the 90s and up until 2001. I got to ride the dotcom bubble to its fullest. I made a million, I lost a million. I worked at a couple of smaller tech companies and then I took some time off from 2003 to 2005 and traded stocks and wrote a stock trading/technical analysis (charts) newsletter. I made another million and lost another million. And then I went back to work in technology where I focus on wireless technologies.

Now, if you want to discredit or otherwise dismiss my views based on my resume instead of the content of what I have written, then can I not do the same for you? I mean, have you seen me say "Don't listen to this George guy, all he knows is woodsy the owl"? The answer is no, I have not. I have shown you the respect to address what you write and not your credentials.

If you disagree with what I write, then make your case, don't go for ad hominem or appeals to authority.


Quote:
On Keynes and the current thinking on stimulus vs. austerity, he's in agreement with the majority of economists -- 3 others of whom I can think of offhand with Nobels themselves. But to call him amateurish is pushing it a little unless you're also working at that level.


Again, I made my case, show me where I am wrong.

Quote:
It's also true that economics is kinda squishy as a science (compared to, say, physics and math) but it (at least Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz et al) insist that models be predictive in nature and that a basic scientific rigor be applied. What he and others keep calling people on is that the predictions made by those advocating austerity -- here and, especially in Europe -- have been wrong. That's wrong, wrong, wrong. The prediction by PK et al was that austerity would put Europe and the UK back into recession and unemployment would increase. That's what happened and, to the extent I understand it, it's basic Keynes.


There has been no austerity programs in europe. Every attempt has been met with riots. Real austerity isn't cutting a fraction of a percent from the budget. It actually means giving something up.

Quote:
At no point has he or anyone else said we don't need to deal with so-called entitlements (e.g. SS, medicare). He's only said we don't do it now when we're in a recession. Even the conservative Joe Scarborough now seems to agree the government has to spend now to help the economy.


First, SS and medicare are not entitlements. We are forced to pay into SS and Medicare and we were promised that we would see the benefits in our later years. True entitlement programs, such as seen with the department of health and human services and housing and urban development should be where the cuts are made.

Quote:
I mean, we can bandy numbers about all day but I cheerfully admit it's way beyond my grade level, poor but honest Forestry major that I am. The reason I like PK so much is he does tend to agree -- and reinforce -- my wild-eyed radical tendencies (Berkeley '73***) but he (and Reich and even Stiglitz) writes with clarity, humor and brilliant irony (hey, "zombie economics" as a term for discredited ideas that keep coming back whatever the evidence against them? Darned clever). They also use facts from usually reliable government sources (GAO, OMB etc).


I do not share your views that a guy with a forestry degree cannot have independent valid views on topics outside of forestry.

I am not going to go point by point on the rest of your post, but I will expound on my case against Krugman.

PK Sez
Quote:
The interest-rate story is fairly simple. As some of us have been trying to explain for four years and more, the financial crisis and the bursting of the housing bubble created a situation in which almost all of the economy's major players are simultaneously trying to pay down debt by spending less than their income. Since my spending is your income and your spending is my income, this means a deeply depressed economy. It also means low interest rates, because another way to look at our situation is, to put it loosely, that right now everyone wants to save and nobody wants to invest. So we're awash in desired savings with no place to go, and those excess savings are driving down borrowing costs.


He is partially correct. A large part of our population is still trying to recover from the fallout of the housing bubble (another result of government intervention in a market). He correctly state that people are paying down debt by spending less than their income. He then equates this to saving. Paying down debt is not saving. The money that is going into debt service is not idle. When I pay off debt, that money goes to the financial institution that holds the debt and they in turn pay their people and they (the people and the company) can invest. Unless they are paying off other debt. But the money that I use to pay off debt is not savings. And I am asserting that it is so basically wrong that it is amateurish.

But let's go to his assertion that interest rates are low because there are excess savings while also making the assertion that people are trying to pay off debt. People don't save when they are awash in debt. They also don't invest. Again, this is an amateurish mistake that should be common sense to anybody.

Interest rates are low because banks can't get the general population to take their money as loans. Interest rates are lowered as incentive to people to take loans. The banks are essentially dropping the price of money. The reason that people don't want to take on more loans is that they already have a bunch of debt that they are already trying to pay down. So even though loan money is cheap, it is impossible for many people to take on more debt. Again, basic stuff here. A nobel prize winning, princeton teaching, new york times writing, economist should know better.

PK Sez:
Quote:
Under these conditions, of course, the government should ignore its short-run deficit and ramp up spending to support the economy. Unfortunately, policy makers have been intimidated by those false priests, who have convinced them that they must pursue austerity or face the wrath of the invisible market gods.


There are two ways that the government can ramp up spending. They can tax us more or they can run on deficit spending. Both have negative economic impacts. Obviously, taxing us more means that we have less money to spend in the open market and that hurts the economy. Deficit spending has a longer term affect and it is definitely a slippery slope. The more our government borrows, the more it has to borrow to service our debt interest. Deficit spending over the long term is what brought us the situation in Greece and Spain and Portugal and a bunch of the other Euro nations. Keynesian economic policies work as a short term bandaid, but they have longer term economic ramifications that are negative. In many cases, they prolong the economic hardship. Bush's response to the economic mess that he was handed was not an austrian economic approach. He went with a Keynesian response that brought us a housing/credit bubble that necessarily had to pop.




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30183 03/08/13 11:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
However, Keynes did not advocate using debt financing to stimulate the economy. Rather, he argued that government should save in the good times and spend in the bad.


this is not a bad idea in itself. It just never happens.

that's the problem with academic economic models. You can say "if only we did this, then we would be great". But the models forget about human nature.

I wonder if a little bankruptcy will change his economic views. Probably not.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30186 03/08/13 11:50 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Quote:
However, Keynes did not advocate using debt financing to stimulate the economy. Rather, he argued that government should save in the good times and spend in the bad.

I am not an economist, though my professional life involves writing computer models of million-dollar machines in order to extract the highest return on investment.

Quick visual aid as to how the Gov. should work:



Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30188 03/08/13 02:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Wagga:

That's the actual engine of capitalism? I thought it was supposed to be an invisible hand! Once again, I'm enlightened as a result of WHA forum.

And, Tom, you misinterpret my asking for background -- not as formal as credentials. I am a major fan of amateurs (myself included) taking part in a robust discussion and using our own interpretation of facts and other authorities to arrive and conclusions. But I didn't find that your references proved your point, or even close. So I was interested in what your background was to call Krugman's knowledge "embarrassing."

You've not reassured me, though I authentically appreciate you (and everyone else here) debating the specifics.

I lost a little more confidence with:

Quote:
I wonder if a little bankruptcy will change his economic views. Probably not.


I totally understand not following up on every link/reference posted here, but you might want to look a little more closely at it (Hint: Kim Jong Un voted Sexiest Man Alive).


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30190 03/08/13 03:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
And, Tom, you misinterpret my asking for background -- not as formal as credentials.


You said this previously:
Quote:
Um, I think that at some point you have to reveal some of your own creds. I mean, the guy teaches at Princeton, writes for the NYT (not a shabby thing in itself) and has a Nobel prize**? On Keynes and the current thinking on stimulus vs. austerity, he's in agreement with the majority of economists -- 3 others of whom I can think of offhand with Nobels themselves. But to call him amateurish is pushing it a little unless you're also working at that level.


I guess there may be other ways to interpret this, but the way that I interpreted it is that you are saying that unless I have some comparable accomplishments in the field of economics, who the hell am I to call him amateurish? Did I miss your intent?

I will retort with a simple "you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" (apologies if I didn't get that exactly right).

so you are saying that I didn't make my case, but you aren't saying what you have a problem with.

Was it where I said that it was a mistake to equate the Dow Jones Industrial average with the overall economy? Something that Krugman clearly did in his article. Are you saying that you equate the DJIA with the economy?

Do you agree with Krugman where he equates paying off debt with savings?

Do you agree with Krugman that the reason that interest rates are too low is because there is too much saving going on?

You say that I haven't made my case, so tell me, which part of my argument do you disagree with.

sorry about not catching that the article you posted was satire. If it said "the onion", I would have got it.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
George #30192 03/08/13 04:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: George
Wagga:That's the actual engine of capitalism? I thought it was supposed to be an invisible hand! Once again, I'm enlightened as a result of WHA forum.

Single-cylinder stationary steam engines need a massive flywheel to operate smoothly. Absorb excess energy during the infrequent power strokes and release energy in between.

Government should operate the same way, stimulating the economy on the upstroke, collecting sufficient taxes on the downstroke.

It's a three-legged dog of an analogy, but you get the idea...


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30195 03/08/13 06:24 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Originally Posted By: tdtz
...More later on the Krugman piece. It deserves a spotlight.


It certainly does. He didn't win the Nobel prize because he posted economic gibberish under a pseudonym on an internet BB.

At least there's something I can agree with you on! smile


This is the same Mr. Paul Krugman who predicted the unemployment rate would not exceed 9% and that Germany would rue its reduction in spending.

It seems to me, Mr. Krugman has made some predictions that have not been exactly spot on. This is excused and ignored because he is, after all, right on the issues.

I do believe Enron advisers in glass houses should not throw stones.



Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30196 03/08/13 07:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: George
Wagga:That's the actual engine of capitalism? I thought it was supposed to be an invisible hand! Once again, I'm enlightened as a result of WHA forum.

A further note:

Look at the Governor - It takes balls to work. Good luck on finding that commodity in Congress.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30220 03/11/13 08:19 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Forums in generally are not well suited to political discourse because people view the world through their own prism and everything tends to reinforce what they already think. This thread has degenerated down to quoting joke articles as if they were fact, and summarizing entire economic theory based on an opinion piece. Expert critique of complex theories should be based on books, not joke articles and short opinion pieces. Blitzkrieg posts with a shotgun blast of subtopics and quotes scattered over pages of screens do not change people's mind.



Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30230 03/11/13 01:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

Paul Krugman Declares Personal Bankruptcy

Paul Krugman

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30231 03/11/13 03:32 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Forums in generally are not well suited to political discourse because people view the world through their own prism and everything tends to reinforce what they already think.


I could have sworn that this was one of my original points. I only entered the fray after one of the mods for the site said she lobbied heavily to keep the topic open.

This thread has degenerated down to quoting joke articles as if they were fact, and summarizing entire economic theory based on an opinion piece.

Interestingly, I did quote the joke article, but the one part that I quoted was the part that was an accurate description of one of Keynes concepts. I had no reason to think that a Krugman fan would post a satire piece on Krugman. I find Krugman's views to be irresponsible and delivered in a pompous manner. It's safe to say, I hadn't ready any Krugman crap in a few years until the NYT piece was posted on this thread.

Personally, i thought the degeneration of the thread happened much earlier when there were words like "hypocritical" thrown around.

My opinion, again, is that I tried to bring the conversation to an open debate instead of snide comments and insults. And that's when we started hearing nothing but crickets.

But you are right, my mind hasn't changed one bit from the conversations on this thread.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30232 03/11/13 03:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
...and right beside the bankruptcy news: Pope Benedict Comes Out as Gay

If that doesn't raise a flag, then read this, it's pretty funny: Breitbart Site Duped by Fake Paul Krugman Bankruptcy Story

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30233 03/11/13 03:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

I don't think that George is going to appreciate that you characterized his posts as "sledge-hammer harangues"

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30234 03/11/13 04:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Quote:
In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

I don't think that George is going to appreciate that you characterized his posts as "sledge-hammer harangues"


I wouldn't for an instant put George's posts in the same category as yours smile

And perhaps harangues is wrong word. Mindless polemics may be more apt.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30236 03/11/13 05:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
And perhaps harangues is wrong word. Mindless polemics may be more apt.


From a man who posts such content rich messages, I will take that as a compliment.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30237 03/11/13 05:42 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Gee Steve, ya think?

Personally, I had never heard of the "dailycurrant". But then again, I haven't heard of most of the 93 Billion websites out there either. I'm guessing that most here have never heard of this site either.

It would have been a big red flag had I read the headlines off to the side. I didn't.

Are you guys even reading what you write before you hit the submit button?

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30239 03/11/13 06:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
If nothing else, this thread should underline that in addition to spelling, grammar & syntax, fact checking is fast sinking.

In a respected aviation journal, referencing the two-month old crisis with Boeing's 787:

"Conner said that Boeing has used some 200 engineers to conduct "probably” more than 200,000 hours of analysis and tests to arrive at a "very comprehensive” solution."

Methinks PR just added a zero or 2 to make it look better.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30241 03/11/13 07:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
If nothing else, this thread should underline that in addition to spelling, grammar & syntax, fact checking is fast sinking.


Interesting conclusion

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30245 03/12/13 08:43 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Quote:
In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

I don't think that George is going to appreciate that you characterized his posts as "sledge-hammer harangues"


I wouldn't for an instant put George's posts in the same category as yours smile

And perhaps harangues is wrong word. Mindless polemics may be more apt.


Let's see we have someone complaining about harangues and mindless polemics whose contributions to this thread have been...

No need for a quiz. Most of us know that's the party which can propose actual solutions, is able to form sentences beyond two letters, who regard trans-vaginal probes as a part of public policy as an abomination, and who may well hold the Presidency for the next 12 years.

Any questions, Mr West?

---

Interesting graphic from Media Matters

---

Paul Krugman has an interesting piece today in the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinio...130308&_r=0

---

Originally Posted By: tdtz
...More later on the Krugman piece. It deserves a spotlight.


It certainly does. He didn't win the Nobel prize because he posted economic gibberish under a pseudonym on an internet BB.

At least there's something I can agree with you on!

---

In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

Paul Krugman Declares Personal Bankruptcy

Paul Krugman

_____

I do find more than a bit irony in this.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30246 03/12/13 09:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Must not hit Reply.
Must not hit Reply!!
Ach! Nein, neiiiiiiiiinnnnn!


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30248 03/12/13 11:20 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Another avalanche of snippets, taken out of context from previous posts. This kind of stuff is pointless and endless baiting.

Not one mention of the anything related to the topic whatsoever: Yosemite, Congress or Sequester.

Interesting experiment into political discussion on a hiking forum. The outcome is exactly as expected.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30260 03/12/13 07:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Actually SierraNevada, they are not snippets but entire posts. That's all there is and there is no more.

Maybe, you could tell me where any these offering are on point? Youn know sequestration or reduction in rate of spending growth.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30265 03/12/13 08:41 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Excuse me for not going back to check if these cut/paste hacks were entire posts or not. Does anyone really care? A shotgun blast of BS is bad form regardless.

IMHO, the best forum for political discussions is climbing up a long hot dusty trail when every word takes effort, and you're heading toward the same destination. If you strip away the party affiliations and the echo chambers, and get down to the basics, people are not all that different. But it's not easy to get past all that when there's so much money to be made by getting people all stirred up.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30272 03/13/13 08:52 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
I have been impressed with your snark over the past few posts. If someone does not agree with you come up with words belittle that person. Words like echo chambers, snippets and hacks rather than address the issue, which if I'm not mistaken is sequestration and budgeting not the musing of Paul Krugman on subjects other than sequestration and budget.

Kevin R has added nothing to this discussion and started it down degradation road early on. I just pointed it out. Sorry, if this offended your tender sensibilities.




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30274 03/13/13 09:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
But it's not easy to get past all that when there's so much money to be made by getting people all stirred up.

Over the years, I've had a hard time even listening to the hard-line commentary of so many radio hosts. I really found their abrasiveness irritating. I couldn't understand why there were so many of them.

But now I realize, just as SN's words point out: They're making lots of money stirring people up. It is not in their best interest to find anything resembling a consensus or compromise, because the people that listen to them would no longer listen. And without listeners, they wouldn't have sponsors, and without sponsors....

Politics is completely corrupted by money: from politicians needing all that money to advertise to the masses in those 30-second sound bites, to Limbaugh and so many other extremists pandering to the wingnuts.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30276 03/13/13 10:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Limbaugh and so many other extremists pandering to the wingnuts.


Steve, some may be willing to admit that Limbaugh and his politics are so-called nutcase hardline rightwing if some on the other side are willing to admit that Obama and his politics are just as nutcase abnormal but on the left. This apparently is the impasse.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30278 03/13/13 10:48 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,505
Likes: 103
It is pretty difficult to agree with that when the President was elected by a majority of voters in this country. There are extremists on the right and on the left. There is no way I'd label any President that way, no matter how much I disliked him.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30279 03/13/13 11:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Politics is completely corrupted by money: from politicians needing all that money to advertise to the masses in those 30-second sound bites, to Limbaugh and so many other extremists pandering to the wingnuts.


No kidding, we have people like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Al Sharpton, Candy Crowley, Bill Maher and all of the daytime chat shows like "the View" feeding the uninformed voting public a bunch of sensationalist pablum to keep the ratings up.

Politics in general is corrupt. That is why it is a good idea to give our politicians less power, not more. It's also a good idea to have a budget and to require our government to operate with fiscal responsibility. If they don't, we should demand that they start making cuts. Especially in areas were they have strayed off into areas where they have no constitutional right or power to spend money.

I believe that a strong case can be made to justify the activities of the Department of the Interior and specifically the National Parks and National Forests. And there just isn't a whole lot of fiscal abuse going on in the DoI.

We should all be screaming at our government for destroying our economy with out of control entitlement programs. These are exacerbated with lax border security and an illegal immigrant policy that allows illegal immigrants to stay and we reward them with various entitlement benefits.

Because of our entitlement programs and illegal immigrant policies we lose legitimate services for legitimate citizens.

But if y'all want to keep all of those entitlement programs, then something has got to give. And it looks like our government has chosen the national parks as one of the unessential services. It is the people voting for entitlement programs who are putting access to Yosemite and the White House at jeopardy.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30286 03/13/13 03:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
This evening MSNBC is airing the Ed Shultz' interview with the fellow who recorded the "47%" speech Mitt Romney gave at a private fundraiser. Just wanted to point that out for all you 'baggers. :grin:

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30287 03/13/13 03:43 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Isn't that special.

-just teabaggin liberals whenever I see em!

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30291 03/13/13 04:27 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: Steve C
It is pretty difficult to agree with that when the President was elected by a majority of voters in this country. There are extremists on the right and on the left. There is no way I'd label any President that way, no matter how much I disliked him.


Just as not all Repub voters are teabaggers, not all Dem voters are extremists like their president. If anyone does not agree that our president is an extremist, then the Emperor has no clothes.

I had hoped that enough "Blue Dog" Democrat voters (like my cousin) would have jumped ship because of the fiscal irresponsibility (the original topic here). I had hoped that enough traditional but unhappy Democrat voters (like one of my employees) had changed sides. She did. Apparently there were still plenty that just robotically voting for their party no matter what ("Yellow Dog Democrats"). Yes, I have voted on both sides, so I can say that I have put my money where my mouth is.

On that note, I think it is time to sign off.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30292 03/13/13 05:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted By: Harvey Lankford
Just as not all Repub voters are teabaggers, not all Dem voters are extremists like their president. If anyone does not agree that our president is an extremist, then the Emperor has no clothes.


Harvey - to call President Obama an extremist is completely ludicrous. If I were to compare his positions to long-established politicians, then Bob Dole comes immediately to mind. Dole was a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30297 03/13/13 09:01 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
As Steve wrote, no President could really be called an extremist, especially when they win re-election. The majority opinion is, by definition, normal. If normal appears extreme, it's because the viewer is looking at reality from an extreme position, far right or far left.

As for fiscal irresponsibility, Reagan and Bush Jr. are clearly the champs at this, despite the rhetoric. Both of them reversed a positive trend and put us on a steep trajectory of increasing debt. One quote says it all, by Dick Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." That is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility in my opinion.

Actually, I defend Reagan for using Keynesian economic theory to jump start the economy in the early 80's with deficit spending (tax cuts and military build up). Unfortunately, he didn't adjust course once the economy got moving. That is the tricky part, to start paying down the debt once the economy recovers. In the end, he tripled the national debt in 8 years from about $1 trillion to $3 trillion.

I also defend Reagan for being flexible on taxes, both raising and lower them as he saw fit. He tinkered with capitol gains, income rates, payroll taxes, and deductions going both up and down. With such a flexible approach to tax policy, he could never win a nomination in today's Republican party. Ironically, as Governor of California he proposed the largest tax increase in state history.

The best chance we ever had at paying down our debt was at the end of the Clinton administration. The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. In 2001, Bush's budget estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. Instead of staying the course and paying down the national debt, he doubled the debt from $5.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion.

So if you're worried about national debt, look at the champs who got us where we are today. It's absurd that the obstructions are crying about the debt while preventing a balanced approach to the problem - the only approach that actually worked in recent history.

Last edited by SierraNevada; 03/13/13 10:25 PM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30299 03/13/13 09:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Unfortunately, he didn't adjust course once the economy got moving.


Interesting, I said the same thing about Greenspan when he lowered the interest rates to kickstart housing (after the abrupt housing cool-down in the 90's)and did not raise them back up in the early-mid 2000's, when housing 'recovered' (not addressing all of the crud that helped build the bubble; raising interst rates would have helped -- especially when he continually warned about the bubble)


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30300 03/13/13 10:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
The best chance we ever had at paying down our debt was at the end of the Clinton administration. The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. In 2001, Bush's budget estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. Instead of staying the course and paying down the national debt, he doubled the debt from $5.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion.


There was never any Clinton surplus. It is a myth. And if you dig into this without bias you can prove it for yourself.

Clinton's economic policies created a bubble, that did increase tax revenues which shows as a positive on the federal government's balance sheet, but it also created the most unhealthy economic environment most of us have seen in our lives. Bubbles necessarily pop.

The myth of the Clinton Surplus explained.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16/
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30

Clinton is as responsible for the current economic situation as Bush. Both of whom created bubbles (with the help of their congresses & the Fed)

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30301 03/13/13 10:39 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Harvey - to call President Obama an extremist is completely ludicrous. If I were to compare his positions to long-established politicians, then Bob Dole comes immediately to mind. Dole was a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican.


Obama is an extremist in much the same way that tea partiers are extremists. Obama is an extremist in his anti-Constitutional policies and views and tea partiers are extremists in their support of the Constitution.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30302 03/13/13 10:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
This is nonsense, that there were no surpluses under Clinton. There were budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration and even your article states that, "...the public debt went down in each of those four years." That is an excellent outcome for any President and the only time it happened recent history. Furthermore, Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus based on the trend at that point in time as he took office. So, I guess you're calling Bush a liar.

I understand you lost your shorts in the dotcom bubble, but how can you blame a president for out of control stock speculation. If he stepped in to regulate the stock market, you would've accused him of interfering with the free market. And I guess he was a bit tied up with that little impeachment thing to be solving real problems.

Last edited by SierraNevada; 03/13/13 11:18 PM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30305 03/13/13 11:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
This is nonsense. There were budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration and even your article states that, "...the public debt went down in each of those four years." That is an excellent outcome for any President and the only time it happened recent history. Furthermore, Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus based on the trend at that point in time. So, I guess you're calling Bush a liar.

I understand you lost your shorts in the dotcom bubble, but how can you blame a president for out of control stock speculation. If he stepped in to regulate the stock market, you would've accused him of interfering with the free market.


Well, I have no problem calling Bush a liar when it is warranted, But projecting a surplus and having a surplus are two different things. Additionally, taking funds that are earmarked for a specific purpose (social security) and using it to pay down debt isn't really creating a surplus (look it up, Clinton did it).

That's the fun thing about statistics, if you slice them just right, you can make them say whatever you want. If you measure from 1995 to early 2000, the trajectory is glorious. But if you measure from 2000 to 2003, it is tragic. That's what happens when tax revenues dry up and spending stays at boom levels.

I did lose a lot of money in the dotcom implosion. I also made a bunch. Overall, I came out on the plus side. It's amazing that people are willing to give Clinton all kinds of credit for the economic situation in the 90s while not recognizing that, if he was responsible for what was perceived as great economic times, he is also responsible for the fallout. Now, I will admit that he doesn't get as much blame (or credit) as some might suggest. There was going to be a bull market anyway...cycles happen. But his monetary policy (and that of congress) along with the Fed (Greenspan, heavily influenced by Clinton) caused the amplitude of the cycle to become greatly exaggerated. Bush/Congress/Fed did the same thing with the housing/credit bubble. It was this meddling in the free market that caused the bubbles and subsequent implosions. Bubbles pop. They are not healthy, regardless of which party is in power.

I realize that you think that it is non-sense, but you haven't provided any evidence to dispute the evidence. There was no surplus. You can't have surplus if you still have debt. It's as simple as that. And again, using funds that are supposed to be protected, as social security is, to pay down debt, is just playing with a balance sheet and not even really reducing debt.

Do you honestly believe that Clinton/Congress/Fed had nothing to do with the out of control stock speculation?

If you absolve Clinton of the responsibility, why don't you absolve Bush from the housing/credit bubble? (which was really engineered by a bunch of democrats with the fair housing act, with the wimplike acquiescence of Bush).

Did I mention that there hasn't been a free market in the U.S. in 70 years? It is the meddling in the markets that caused all of this. I won't complain when they stop. And yes, there will be some economic pain when it happens. Stepping in to regulate the stock market wasn't what was needed. What we needed was for Clinton/Congress/Fed to stop providing artificial stimulants to the market.

We people are prone to panic during extremes of cyclical events. Weather cycles go to one end or the other and we are panicking about the next ice age or global warming. And we take dramatic steps that will not change things one way or the other, except to harm our economy. Or we will be in a negative economic cycle and we panic because it will never get better, so we enact crazy economic policies to offset the down cycle and end up over steering and exaggerating the cycles.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30308 03/14/13 08:02 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted By: tdtz

I realize that you think that it is non-sense, but you haven't provided any evidence to dispute the evidence. There was no surplus. You can't have surplus if you still have debt. It's as simple as that. And again, using funds that are supposed to be protected, as social security is, to pay down debt, is just playing with a balance sheet and not even really reducing debt.

There is a difference between budget surplus (revenues higher than expenditures in a given fiscal year) vs federal debt (sum of all previous budget deficits). The articles you link to prove my point with text and tables. They show annual budget surpluses, which are as a direct result of Clinton fiscal policy. That's the best federal budget performance in modern history, in stark contrast to Reagan-Bush Sr before him, and Bush Jr. after him. Of course it didn't make a big dent in the much larger federal debt, which accumulated over 200+ years and just quadrupled in the preceding 12 years under Reaganomics. Fact is, Clinton policy resulted in federal budget surpluses and we were heading in a positive direction. If Bush Jr. were fiscally responsible, he would've stayed that course.

It's nonsense to add "intragovernment holdings" just to complicate the picture to deny reality, which is the gist of your articles. The reality is Clinton policy led to greater revenue than expenditures - a net surplus for the last few years of his presidency. He inherit large deficits and his policies turned it around. He is responsible for that positive outcome. By contrast, cutting taxes on the top brackets has never led to a budget surplus. They led to deficit spending, which is stimulative but sometimes necessary, and they transferred a tremendous share of wealth to the wealthiest. It's simple arithmetic.

I admit to being partisan on this issue because I'm a fiscal conservative, the facts are so clear on this matter, and the Republican hypocrisy is disturbing. A Democratic President and Republican Congress should be the best arrangement for dealing with debt, but unfortunately one side seems to think we have arrived at the holy grail of tax policy and nothing can be raised to create a balanced approach to the problem. They even want to cut taxes again, which is ridiculously irresponsible.

Again, what exactly was Clinton supposed to do to stop the market speculation on Wall Street known afterward as the "dotcom bubble" while being impeached for having an affair.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30310 03/14/13 09:32 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Champs at deficits? By what measure? GWB and Regans deficits on average were less than 3% of GDP whereas Obama's deficits have averaged close 9%, the highest in the post WW II era.

Clinton's surplus were capital gains driven. If God were elected in 2000, he would have had a deficit, even if 9/11 did not occur. There was this thing called the dotcom bust that flushed all those surpluses and then some down the toilet.

Every administration since Hoover has run a deficit...including Clinton's, just add up what revenues were taken in minus what he spent.

Last edited by wbtravis; 03/14/13 09:33 AM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30312 03/14/13 10:08 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
I admit to being partisan on this issue because I'm a fiscal conservative, the facts are so clear on this matter, and the Republican hypocrisy is disturbing. A Democratic President and Republican Congress should be the best arrangement for dealing with debt, but unfortunately one side seems to think we have arrived at the holy grail of tax policy and nothing can be raised to create a balanced approach to the problem. They even want to cut taxes again, which is ridiculously irresponsible.


I am glad you admit to being partisan. You will notice that I don't tout Bush or Reagan...ever. In fact, you will notice that I haven't given any indication that I approve of Bush's policies and that I actively disapproved of them. I've done that multiple times on this thread and yet his name is thrown at me as if to prove something.

Quote:
Again, what exactly was Clinton supposed to do to stop the market speculation on Wall Street known afterward as the "dotcom bubble" while being impeached for having an affair.


This is the part that most people have a problem with. I prefer inaction when it comes to government. When you say "what was Clinton supposed to do", it's what I want him to NOT do. Clinton encouraged a loose money policy. Though he only requested specific action from the fed a few times, Greenspan's loose money policy was very much in line with his own. He also increased money supply through the treasury. His policies made money cheap. Cheap money finds its way to the investment market which contributed to the inflation of the bubble.

Now, before you go off on me for changing my tune, please go back and read what I wrote about Clinton. I said (and I'm not even looking) "if you give Clinton credit for the boom, you have to blame him for the bust" (paraphrased). I also stated that the bubble was going to happen anyway, that it was cyclical, it's that his policies increased the amplitude of the cycle.

It's similar to the Bush situation, it cannot be denied that he inherited a big ole bag of steaming economic crap. He also inherited an international situation that was more challenging that almost any other president in history. 9/11 happened only 8 months into his presidency. It was planned during Clinton's tenure. And given the liberal tendency to blame the past president, if you blame Bush for Obama economic and foreign policy situation, then you have to blame Clinton for the one that Bush received. That is, if you want to maintain some level of intellectual honesty. The economic policies of Bush/Congress/Fed encouraged the credit/housing bubble through RE speculation. Easy money finds it's way into investments and inflates the investment beyond reasonable expected value. And then it implodes.

But back to the myth of the Clinton surplus. During the years that there was a claim that there was a budget surplus, the national debt went up. In one of the years that he claimed a surplus, the national debt went from $4.3T to $5.6T. You don't increase your debt by $1.3T when you have a budget surplus.

When the surplus was claimed, it excluded intergovernmental holdings. They claimed loans from social security as revenue on budget reports. That's where the "surplus" came from...it was an accounting trick. And this accounting trick created a false sense of security in the investment community that also helped to inflate the bubble. In other words, you claiming it is nonsense, doesn't make it so.

Think of this in the corporate realm. A corporation has a subsidiary. It shows the revenues and assets of the subsidiary on its balance sheet. Then the parent corporation takes a loan from the subsidiary and claims that loan as revenue. Thus giving a greater EPS which attracts more investors,thus raising the price of the stock. Do you think that the SEC might have a problem with this? That's what the Clinton administration did.

and finally, cutting taxes is a great idea! It stimulates the economy in multiple ways. It allows money to be invested in private businesses which then pay more taxes. It allows you and I to spend more money on goods and services rather than throwing it into the dead money pit of the US government.

Oh, and Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying to congress about it. Personally, I could give a crap about it. But it does show that he is a slimebag. If a corporate executive in his 50s had an affair with an intern in her early 20s, everybody would (and should) cry sexual harassment. There was a disproportionate power relationship and he had a responsibility to not exploit it.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30336 03/14/13 06:06 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Clinton encouraged a loose money policy. Though he only requested specific action from the fed a few times, Greenspan's loose money policy was very much in line with his own. He also increased money supply through the treasury. His policies made money cheap. Cheap money finds its way to the investment market which contributed to the inflation of the bubble.

That's it. That's why you blame Clinton 14 yrs later for the Great Recession? Because "his policies made money cheap" back in the 1990s." OK. Wow.

You and wbtravis just won't give up on that nonsense trying to rewrite the Clinton surpluses. For those following along, factcheck and others debunked this nonsense years ago:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Bottom line: There was a surplus under Clinton no matter how hard you try to deny it.


More importantly, Clinton economic policy reversed Reaganomic policy and what happened? He raised taxes on the wealthy, but the economy did not crash. Amazing, let's repeat that - he raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy did not crash. In fact it started one of the best economic expansions in our history and yes, it ended in budget surpluses. The best budget performance in modern times no matter how you twist it. Bush Jr. felt so good about what he inherited from Clinton, he declared a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus for the next 10 years.

And then we went back to Reganomics Part 2 with even deeper tax cuts. The deficits returned and soared. The wealth of the wealthy soared and the middle class stagnated. Banks were allowed into the brokerage business and leveraged their assets like the 1920s. The result was a historic disaster.

With 40 years of recent data from two different approaches, it's quite obvious what works and what doesn't. The recent budget deficits have peaked and are beginning to come down. If the obstructions get out of the way and allow a balanced approach to this problem, I'm confident the deficits will continue to decline steadily.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30345 03/14/13 08:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
It would help if you actually read what I wrote....

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30346 03/15/13 05:01 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Paul Krugman has a good piece - After the FlimFlam- in the NYT this morning.

Undoubtably it will provoke the usual histrionics from the 'baggers following this thread... wink

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30348 03/15/13 06:58 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Undoubtably it will provoke the usual histrionics from the 'baggers following this thread..


No histrionics, just laughter at the liberal gnomes

Liberal Progressive economic policy summed up in 10 seconds....

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30350 03/15/13 07:56 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Paul Krugman has a good piece - After the FlimFlam- in the NYT this morning.

Undoubtably it will provoke the usual histrionics from the 'baggers following this thread... wink

Kevin, labeling others is taunting and it detracts from your content.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30351 03/15/13 09:10 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Clinton encouraged a loose money policy. Though he only requested specific action from the fed a few times, Greenspan's loose money policy was very much in line with his own. He also increased money supply through the treasury. His policies made money cheap. Cheap money finds its way to the investment market which contributed to the inflation of the bubble.

That's it. That's why you blame Clinton 14 yrs later for the Great Recession? Because "his policies made money cheap" back in the 1990s." OK. Wow.

You and wbtravis just won't give up on that nonsense trying to rewrite the Clinton surpluses. For those following along, factcheck and others debunked this nonsense years ago:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Bottom line: There was a surplus under Clinton no matter how hard you try to deny it.


More importantly, Clinton economic policy reversed Reaganomic policy and what happened? He raised taxes on the wealthy, but the economy did not crash. Amazing, let's repeat that - he raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy did not crash. In fact it started one of the best economic expansions in our history and yes, it ended in budget surpluses. The best budget performance in modern times no matter how you twist it. Bush Jr. felt so good about what he inherited from Clinton, he declared a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus for the next 10 years.

And then we went back to Reganomics Part 2 with even deeper tax cuts. The deficits returned and soared. The wealth of the wealthy soared and the middle class stagnated. Banks were allowed into the brokerage business and leveraged their assets like the 1920s. The result was a historic disaster.

With 40 years of recent data from two different approaches, it's quite obvious what works and what doesn't. The recent budget deficits have peaked and are beginning to come down. If the obstructions get out of the way and allow a balanced approach to this problem, I'm confident the deficits will continue to decline steadily.


Let me see if I got this right. I have denied there was a surplus during the Clinton Administration. That is patently false. There were times Mr. Clinton ran a surplus but like all administrations since Hoover his administration was in the red...just add up the surpluses and deduct the deficits.

Hmmm...someone did. Damn, that internet thingy is really too cool for school...

Total surplus from 1993-2000...$430.2 bn, total Deficits $751.8 bn. I went to public school in Philadelphia but it appears to me the deficits are just a tad larger then surpluses in the eight years Mr. Clinton was in office. http://tinyurl.com/2d5dtr7

You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30355 03/15/13 01:04 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
SO, how about that Whitney Portal Road clearing budget debacle, huh?


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30356 03/15/13 04:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: saltydog
SO, how about that Whitney Portal Road clearing budget debacle, huh?


Did I miss something? I don't recall the Portal Road mentioned in the 'sequestering' cutbacks...Well, then again, I don't recall most of the last two pages of this thread as part of the 'consequences' of sequestering, either.


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #30357 03/15/13 05:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Did I miss something? I don't recall the Portal Road mentioned in the 'sequestering' cutbacks...Well, then again, I don't recall most of the last two pages of this thread as part of the 'consequences' of sequestering, either.


Perhaps part of the problem is that sequestering really isn't the issue with original title of the thread. It's just a political stunt.

But, I did try to tie the conversation to sequestering and Yosemite. Please see bold below. And it turns out, I only had to go back one page.
=====================================================
No kidding, we have people like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Al Sharpton, Candy Crowley, Bill Maher and all of the daytime chat shows like "the View" feeding the uninformed voting public a bunch of sensationalist pablum to keep the ratings up.

Politics in general is corrupt. That is why it is a good idea to give our politicians less power, not more. It's also a good idea to have a budget and to require our government to operate with fiscal responsibility. If they don't, we should demand that they start making cuts. Especially in areas were they have strayed off into areas where they have no constitutional right or power to spend money.

I believe that a strong case can be made to justify the activities of the Department of the Interior and specifically the National Parks and National Forests. And there just isn't a whole lot of fiscal abuse going on in the DoI.

We should all be screaming at our government for destroying our economy with out of control entitlement programs. These are exacerbated with lax border security and an illegal immigrant policy that allows illegal immigrants to stay and we reward them with various entitlement benefits.

Because of our entitlement programs and illegal immigrant policies we lose legitimate services for legitimate citizens.

But if y'all want to keep all of those entitlement programs, then something has got to give. And it looks like our government has chosen the national parks as one of the unessential services. It is the people voting for entitlement programs who are putting access to Yosemite and the White House at jeopardy.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30365 03/15/13 11:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted By: tdtz
It's also a good idea to have a budget and to require our government to operate with fiscal responsibility.

I agree, as a fiscal conservative, I love to discuss fiscal responsibility. Like any political independent, I appreciate that our system depends on two healthy parties, debating various issues and respecting the will of the public based on the outcome of elections. So let's examine the fiscal responsibility when each party won the national election and controlled the White House. The President never gets everything of course, but historically the losing party respectfully deferred to the victor to a large extent. Not so today, but extreme obstruction and record filibusters is another topic.

Notice the steep drop in top tax rate during the roaring 20's. There was a massive shift in wealth to the wealthiest and the end result was the Great Depression. Also notice that Reagan returned us to that general range for the top tax rate in the 1980s. What was the result? Quadrupling of 200 years of national debt.


Notice how the debt decreased under the Clinton administration. What happened? A fiscally responsible slight increase in the upper tax rate led to reducing deficits and even SURPLUSES. The tax increase was not easy. It took the Vice President (also President of the Senate) to cast the tie breaking vote to make this happen in 1993.
The evidence is clear and irrefutable, Republican "supply side" economic policies have resulted in fiscal irresponsibly and large budget deficits. As an added consequence, extremely low top tax rates dramatically shifted wealth to the top and eventually led to the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Republican obstructionism has resulted in government shutdowns in the 1990s, record filibusters, credit rating reductions due to failure to raise the debt ceiling, and now sequestration. Not to mention wasting time on repealing Obamacare 35 times - the definition of insanity - repeating the same thing hoping for a different outcome. Even Fox News is telling them it ain't gonna happen.

Ever since Reagan, each Republican president inherited declining budget deficits from a Democratic administration and then left office with increasing budget deficits. Each Democratic administration in the last 40 years has inherited rising deficits and reversed them. Even today, the deficits inherited by Obama have peaked and are on the way down. There is no question about which party is more fiscally responsible. It takes a lot of blind party loyalty to distort this clear picture.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #30367 03/16/13 09:14 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted By: Bee
Originally Posted By: saltydog
SO, how about that Whitney Portal Road clearing budget debacle, huh?


Did I miss something? I don't recall the Portal Road mentioned in the 'sequestering' cutbacks...Well, then again, I don't recall most of the last two pages of this thread as part of the 'consequences' of sequestering, either.


Exactly.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30369 03/16/13 10:51 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Salty, understanding the historical reasons for our dramatic rise in national debt since 1980 is essential to understanding what to do about it. Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Now that the crisis seems to have peaked, whatever we do should be gradual, and sequester is a knee jerk. The TARP bailouts that Bush Jr started were necessary, and the program did it's job. Obama's loans to GM kept the auto industry from imploding and are being repaid. Extended unemployment payouts are declining, and the stimulus spending is phasing out. Those emergency measures were necessary to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. That's why there are times when deficit spending is necessary. In my opinion, Reagan was justified for some of his deficit spending to get us out of the post-Vietnam stagflation of the 70's from the oil crises. Bush Jr was justified for priming the pump following 911. These measures should only go on for a couple of years, more or less, and then when the private sector recovers, the debt should be paid down to get ready for the next crisis. But no, they ran up debt like a drunken sailor on leave. Now we're at a tipping point with very little room for emergency measures.

Our economy just suffered a heart attack in 2007, the triple bypass surgery was successful, but we're not quite ready for the Boston marathon just yet. Let's address the debt in a gradual and balanced manner without tying one hand behind our back. This was all debated in the last election. The party that lost should not be obstructing progress because they control one half of one half of the government. Do they have to be completely removed from power to get things done? That's what happened in California state government. I think they are afraid Obama will be successful if he's allow to follow what has obviously worked in the past.

Our system depends on two healthy parties with competing ideas to arrive at the best solutions to our problems. The minority leader and other Republicans have openly declared that opposing Obama is their highest priority. That attitude has no place in our system and those people need to be removed from power or the entire party needs to grow up.

Last edited by SierraNevada; 03/16/13 11:07 AM.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30371 03/16/13 04:33 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Salty, understanding the historical reasons for our dramatic rise in national debt since 1980 is essential to understanding what to do about it. Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.


Ooohhhhhhh, yeah, I know, right? I can't wait to get to high school so I can someday understand really important stuff like that, and plus what the heck the big kids are talking about when they say stuff like "Those who misquote Santayana are condemned repeat 9th grade". And stuff.


Wherever you go, there you are.
SPOTMe!
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
saltydog #30373 03/16/13 05:36 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Salty, I can't tell where you're coming from, but I was just following up on your post that says the last two pages have nothing to do with sequester. Maybe that quote was referring to previous pages in this thread. I think the history of debt accumulation has a lot to do with sequester, budget negotiations, and raising the debt ceiling.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30374 03/16/13 06:01 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
Salty, I can't tell where you're coming from, but I was just following up on your post that says the last two pages have nothing to do with sequester. Maybe that quote was referring to previous pages in this thread. I think the history of debt accumulation has a lot to do with sequester, budget negotiations, and raising the debt ceiling.


Oh, that was my qoute...Dog was just agreeing.

Anyhow, I think that your last post is a nice general summary of From There to Here and Back, Again.

Hopefully, we don't end up at the same table as Spain, Italy, Greece et al.(especially the part were taxes go up to about 59%, but no bother, because there is so much graft that no one pays them, anyway.....or closer to home: Detroit...ah, the days when street lights used to work)

Okay, going to bugger out, because in all honesty, I am not informed enough to partake in the conversation as it stands.


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Bee #30387 03/17/13 10:51 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Very good summary by SN.

Not sure where this fits in, but an interesting story on the effects of trolls and nasty comments:
Quote:

"The Web is a place for unlimited exchange of ideas. But according to an NPR report, researchers have found that rude comments on articles can change the way we interpret the news. 'It's a little bit like the Wild West. The trolls are winning,' says Dominique Brossard, co-author of the study on the so-called 'Nasty Effect.' Researchers worked with a science writer to construct a balanced news story on the pros and cons of nanotechnology, a topic chosen so that readers would have to make sense of a complicated issue with low familiarity. They then asked 1,183 subjects to review the blog post from a Canadian newspaper that discussed the water contamination risks of nanosilver particles and the antibacterial benefits. Half saw the story with polite comments, and the other half saw rude comments, like: 'If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you're an idiot.' People that were exposed to the polite comments didn't change their views really about the issue covering the story, while the people that did see the rude comments became polarized — they became more against the technology that was covered in the story. Brossard says we need to have an anchor to make sense of complicated issues. 'And it seems that rudeness and incivility is used as a mental shortcut to make sense of those complicated issues.'

Brossard says there's no quick fix for this issue (PDF), and while she thinks it's important to foster conversation through comments sections, every media organization has to figure out where to draw the line when comments get out of control. 'It's possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning meanspirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead,' writes Brossard. 'Until then, beware the nasty effect.'"
Original from Slashdot:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/16/144247/why-trolls-win-with-toxic-comments


Original NPR report is at:
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/174027294/...ft=1&f=1007

And, update on sequester. There's still budgeting juggling going on, but there's no question NPS will cut season lengths of seasonal rangers -- some by two to three weeks which, in a 3 to 4 month season is significant cut to visitor services (to say nothing of a ranger's income...).

NPS Fire is hit much worse. Over the last several years, they've been cut by 40%, so to be hit by another 5% when they're already down so much could be catastrophic.

One more? A very interesting analysis of California's severe budget cuts over the last few years. Furloughs of one day every two weeks were required for most all State workers. Not only did this increase frustration for the public (even longer DMV waits and deterioration of all state services) but it ended up costing more. What happened is that workers just used the forced days off as vacation and didn't use their accrued vacation time. The latter accumulated and, of course, converts to a financial liability to the state budget equal to any cost savings from the forced furloughs.

I think the same effect might be seen with, say, NPS cuts -- especially in emergency services jobs like rangers and fire. There's no reduction in visitation or the emergency incidents those visitors generate (medicals, rescues, searches etc.). You still need the same number of people to respond to incidents and active fires, so the agency ends up paying more in overtime for the existing employees to work and cover empty shifts. The end result is no real savings as expected from the original cuts.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.326s Queries: 342 (0.288s) Memory: 1.6095 MB (Peak: 2.5836 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 09:44:45 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS