• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I thought we were broke?

longknife

longknife

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
1,385
Reaction score
501
Location
Sin City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Right Truth|Debbie @ Right Truth: I thought we were broke?

I thought national parks were closing because of the sequestration. That's what Barack Obama told everyone in his scare the public campaign. Now he has designated five new national parks/monuments, including the in Joe Biden's backyard, Delaware’s Great Cypress Swamp as a National Park.

That's the same Joe Biden who just spent over a million dollars of taxpayer money on TWO nights in hotels:

Biden's One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50...

$459,388.65 Hotel Bill in London...

No end to the Obama administration's spending.
Click to expand...

And these are also reported in other than conservative sites.
 
The US is nowhere near "broke." Not even close.

Setting aside land as national monuments doesn't have anything to do with the sequestration cuts.
 
We are only "broke" when it comes to helping out the poor or middle class. When the "bankers" or "defense contractors" need some money we have no problem digging up TRILLIONS of dollars to hand them.
 
With the Fed and their mass printing (or entering zeros into databases) we will never go broke. And according to many on this forum, we will never have to pay anything back, so lets keep the good times rollin'. Yeehaw.
 
Snake Oil said:
We are only "broke" when it comes to helping out the poor or middle class. When the "bankers" or "defense contractors" need some money we have no problem digging up TRILLIONS of dollars to hand them.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it was just last year that the Republicans voted unanimously to continue spending in 2013 nearly as much as the rest of the world COMBINED on the military/industrial complex.
 
You know...national parks/monuments are fine...people have fun at those places...but it's important in these troubled times to set priorities.

I think it's more important to protect our starving staffers than to spend the money on mere pieces of ground. So, I want to hear it shouted all across this great nation: Save Our Starving Staffers! SOSS! SOSS! SOSS!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Sequester nearly starving staffers - Washington Times
 
NAKED N00B said:
We're not broke.
Click to expand...

We are beyond broke. The government borrows 40% of everything it spends. The treasury prints money out of thin air to loan to the banks interest free so that the banks can loan it back to the government with interest. It is a Ponzi scheme and it can't last much longer. It is going to end very badly. Way beyond broke. We're in serious trouble.

The politicians will tell you differently because they want to continue to spend money since we have allowed them to believe that spending money represents their power base. It is all about power. You need to use your common sense. Tell me what sort of trouble you would experience if you were borrowing 40% of everything you spend.
 
come on its not like Biden ordered porn and raided the mini bar...
 
longknife said:
Right Truth|Debbie @ Right Truth: I thought we were broke?



And these are also reported in other than conservative sites.
Click to expand...

I believe that designating an area as a national park is done for other reasons, mostly to prevent it from being exploited by private businesses, such as the logging industry.

Which doesn't necessarily mean much money will be spent on it as a national park.
 
Mycroft said:
You know...national parks/monuments are fine...people have fun at those places...but it's important in these troubled times to set priorities.

I think it's more important to protect our starving staffers than to spend the money on mere pieces of ground. So, I want to hear it shouted all across this great nation: Save Our Starving Staffers! SOSS! SOSS! SOSS!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Sequester nearly starving staffers - Washington Times
Click to expand...

God forbid that they actually be asked to pack a lunch for work, that is way too much trouble. They need subsidized meals just like they got as school kids. ;)
 
NAKED N00B said:
We're not broke.
Click to expand...

Of course not. We are just maxing out our credit cards every month, and demand that our imaginary uncles cough up more and more to pay for it.
 
samsmart said:
I believe that designating an area as a national park is done for other reasons, mostly to prevent it from being exploited by private businesses, such as the logging industry.

Which doesn't necessarily mean much money will be spent on it as a national park.
Click to expand...

Then why not simply make it into a state/city park? The answer is likely that then real tax money is required, rather than borrowed/printed money. ;)
 
Mycroft said:
You know...national parks/monuments are fine...people have fun at those places...but it's important in these troubled times to set priorities.

I think it's more important to protect our starving staffers than to spend the money on mere pieces of ground. So, I want to hear it shouted all across this great nation: Save Our Starving Staffers! SOSS! SOSS! SOSS!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Sequester nearly starving staffers - Washington Times
Click to expand...

So the article says Debbie Wasserman Schultz's staffers earn between $60,000 - $160,000 a year.

But the median sales price of homes in Washington, DC is $439,700 and the average rent price is $2,330, which comes out to $27,960 a year.

Which means that her lowest paid staffer must pay 47% of their income to rent while her highest paid staffer must pay 17% of their income to rent.

And that doesn't include things such as health insurance, car insurance, car loans, retirement savings, pay for children's education, caring for retired parents or grandparents, food, and gasoline.

So one reason why those staffers get paid so much is because DC is a costly city to live in.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why not simply make it into a state/city park? The answer is likely that then real tax money is required, rather than borrowed/printed money. ;)
Click to expand...

Or it could be that the local and state governments are unwilling to make it a local or state park for their own reasons. Such as because local and state government officials will get kickbacks to let the logging industry exploit that area.
 
samsmart said:
I believe that designating an area as a national park is done for other reasons, mostly to prevent it from being exploited by private businesses, such as the logging industry.

Which doesn't necessarily mean much money will be spent on it as a national park.
Click to expand...

Yeah...according to what I've read, these areas won't cost the government much money...except for staffing.

On the other hand, some of the people seeing their hours cut in other areas of the government might not look too kindly on seeing others getting jobs when they are losing pay. Especially those poor staffers.

SOSS!!
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
So the article says Debbie Wasserman Schultz's staffers earn between $60,000 - $160,000 a year.

But the median sales price of homes in Washington, DC is $439,700 and the average rent price is $2,330, which comes out to $27,960 a year.

Which means that her lowest paid staffer must pay 47% of their income to rent while her highest paid staffer must pay 17% of their income to rent.

And that doesn't include things such as health insurance, car insurance, car loans, retirement savings, pay for children's education, caring for retired parents or grandparents, food, and gasoline.

So one reason why those staffers get paid so much is because DC is a costly city to live in.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that's why I really feel sorry for those guys...just like Debbie does. I would certainly complain if I couldn't afford to get my gourmet sandwich like I used to.

SOSS!!
 
samsmart said:
I believe that designating an area as a national park is done for other reasons, mostly to prevent it from being exploited by private businesses, such as the logging industry.

Which doesn't necessarily mean much money will be spent on it as a national park.
Click to expand...

Care to provide any evidence to back up that assertion?

Rick Smith, of the Coalition of National Park Retirees, said that the president acted because Congress had failed to enact legislation creating more parks and protected sites.

“Americans support and want more parks and monuments because they boost local economies, preserve our national heritage and tell our diverse American story,” Mr. Smith told the paper. “In particular, all Americans can be proud with the establishment of the First State National Monument in Delaware — all 50 states are now home to an area included in our National Park System.”
Click to expand...

More than 150 local businesses support the land’s permanent protection, and the coalition estimates it will bring $15 million to the local economy a year.

“We celebrate the new Rio Grande el Norte National Monument because it means these beautiful public lands that lure tourists, new residents and entrepreneurs to Taos will always be protected,” said Jamie Tedesco, executive director of the Taos Green Chamber of Commerce.
Click to expand...

Despite sequester, Obama to designate five national monuments - Washington Times
 
samsmart said:
So the article says Debbie Wasserman Schultz's staffers earn between $60,000 - $160,000 a year.

But the median sales price of homes in Washington, DC is $439,700 and the average rent price is $2,330, which comes out to $27,960 a year.

Which means that her lowest paid staffer must pay 47% of their income to rent while her highest paid staffer must pay 17% of their income to rent.

And that doesn't include things such as health insurance, car insurance, car loans, retirement savings, pay for children's education, caring for retired parents or grandparents, food, and gasoline.

So one reason why those staffers get paid so much is because DC is a costly city to live in.
Click to expand...

And why is that?

I lived in DC and even commuted from Dale City.

Who owns most of the property and asks for such high prices?
 
longknife said:
And why is that?

I lived in DC and even commuted from Dale City.

Who owns most of the property and asks for such high prices?
Click to expand...

No idea who owns it, but the housing, as far as I understand, is mostly privately owned, and so they can ask however much they want in rent or to sell.

But there's still a lot of demand for housing considering the number of workers needed in the government offices, and that doesn't count the non-government workers who live there taking up housing space as well.

I'm just pointing out the high cost of living in DC, which explains staffer salaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom