Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's unfortunate that these vets are being inconvenienced, but let's face reality here, that's all this is. No one will die because they can't walk around a memorial. You should instead be wringing your hands in dismay about all of the homebound vets and other seniors who depend on programs like Meals on Wheels who could be going hungry if this shutdown continues. You know, people who are suffering real consequences. But to do so would go against the GOP meme that no one is really being hurt by this drawnout shut down. So much better and easier to go with the good photo op of a chained off memorial and pretend that this is the biggest outrage ever!!!!!
Your protests ring hollow to thinking people.
You are missing the point.
The point isn't that people can't go see monuments.
The point is that the ONLY REASON people can't go see monuments is because the government is PAYING MONEY to do things like put up barricades and hire "armed guards" to keep people out.
Why can't they spend the money they are using to basically "close monuments" to pay for Meals on Wheels? Oh, because then no one would be inconvenienced - people would still get their meals and people would be able to walk around in a park. Oh no.
So instead, they spend the money to make sure no one can walk around in a park and then claim they don't have money to feed people.
Do you think it's okay to spend thousands of dollars in order to make sure people don't park in a parking lot? Or to make sure they can't pull over on the highway and take a picture of a mountain? Why should money be spent doing ANY of that? That is what the outrage is about.
Guess what you need to do in order to close an open-air monument or a park? Nothing, you just walk away. You don't need to put up fences or hire guards, you just stop paying to maintain it. Tell the guy who mows the lawn not to come this week, tell the guy who gives tours not to come in this week - you don't hire MORE people to do MORE things if you are actually "shutting down".
The Roman Empire "shut down" hundreds of years ago. If this is what happens when governments "shut down" then why are there not Roman guards standing outside the Amphitheatres? Oh that's right, because when you ACTUALLY shut down, you just abandon things completely, not spend more money on them.
Last edited by JoulesMSU; 10-09-2013 at 01:09 PM..
We are in this situation because the Democrats controlled Congress while Bush was President from 2007 through 2009, and they were spending irrationally, running more than a trillion dollar deficit in just one year.
Riiiiiiiiiight........the budget was in pure balance between 2001 and 2007. Bush didn't hand president Obama a pre approved 700 billion stimulus plan for his signature when he turned over the keys to the white house.
The point isn't that people can't go see monuments.
The point is that the ONLY REASON people can't go see monuments is because the government is PAYING MONEY to do things like put up barricades and hire "armed guards" to keep people out.
Why can't they spend the money they are using to basically "close monuments" to pay for Meals on Wheels? Oh, because then no one would be inconvenienced - people would still get their meals and people would be able to walk around in a park. Oh no.
So instead, they spend the money to make sure no one can walk around in a park and then claim they don't have money to feed people.
I think the National Park Service's actions are unreasonable and egregious.
But when this is behind us, I hope that Congress doesn't decide to spend money on an investigation. Let's just blame Obama for this one and move on.
The point isn't that people can't go see monuments.
The point is that the ONLY REASON people can't go see monuments is because the government is PAYING MONEY to do things like put up barricades and hire "armed guards" to keep people out.
Why can't they spend the money they are using to basically "close monuments" to pay for Meals on Wheels? Oh, because then no one would be inconvenienced - people would still get their meals and people would be able to walk around in a park. Oh no.
So instead, they spend the money to make sure no one can walk around in a park and then claim they don't have money to feed people.
As for the government shutdown, every one in the House who played a role in the shutdown should be fired with no cushy retirement pay to fall back on. I'm tired of listening to the BS about how this is all in the best interests of the public. Utter nonsense! Less talky, more worky. Replace every one of these morons with people who are actually willing do their job. So who's really going to foot the bill for losses incurred? The public as usual. If these people remain in office, the expenses for the government shutdown should come out of their checks until it's completely paid for. If you or I pulled a stunt like that, we'd be standing in line at the employment office. They could settle this without resorting to shutting things down. That's just plain stupid and irresponsible.
Riiiiiiiiiight........the budget was in pure balance between 2001 and 2007. Bush didn't hand president Obama a pre approved 700 billion stimulus plan for his signature when he turned over the keys to the white house.
The deficit was a trillion less from 2001 through 2006 than it was in 2007. In the span of the last two years Bush was President, the Democrat controlled Congress racked up more debt than in all previous six years combined.
We are in this situation because the Democrats controlled Congress while Bush was President from 2007 through 2009, and they were spending irrationally, running more than a trillion dollar deficit in just one year.
Wow, what a narrative -- it was the Democrats. The Democrats passed Bush's proposed budgets. Those budgets were deficit budgets from the start.
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, February 3, 2003 Posted: 6:53 PM EST (2353 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vowing to be a good steward of the public's money, President Bush sent to Capitol Hill Monday a $2.2 trillion 2004 budget that calls for hundreds of billions in tax cuts and shows a record federal deficit of $304 billion.
The deficit was a trillion less from 2001 through 2006 than it was in 2007. In the span of the last two years Bush was President, the Democrat controlled Congress racked up more debt than in all previous six years combined.
Oh what a dishonest narrative. The deficit was $163 billion in 2007, so I have no idea how you came up with the figure, "deficit was a trillion less from 2001 through 2006 than it was in 2007." That would mean that between 2001 and 2006, the nation ran huge surpluses, which is untrue.
Did you ever think that the economic downturn in 2008 had something to do with that deficits the following years? The major cause of the deficit was much lower revenue, caused by the downturn, not the Democrats. If you stick by that "theory" what SPECIFICALLY did the Democrats pass that caused that deficit? It's like blaming the Democrats for a rainy day.
Besides, as I have shown in the previous post, Bush submitted unbalanced budgets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush didn't hand president Obama a pre approved 700 billion stimulus plan for his signature when he turned over the keys to the white house. 
