Sad state of our National Parks-II

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Again, this is not political. It is to our interest as RVers and for Camping World business to have an outstanding national parks that usually provide the cheaper camping facilities and best places to visit and see.

Just recently been to one of the most popular national park and the results of funding cuts (7%), fund diversion ($22 million for the frivolous July 4 parade) and distorted priorities or even hostility towards the environment (area around Sequoia National Park are set to be opened for oil explorations).

The symptoms of these are all over. Campsites opening late, maintenance not being done, exodus of park rangers and unfilled positions. One very obvious situations on the two camps I've stayed are slots marked unavailable because it's inaccessible when a simple mini dozer could have graded the dirt road, closing of all toilets because of unapproved requisitions and requests for repairs of pipes for the water system...

I've written the top federal department responsible -- not even a form letter acknowledgement of my concerns.

Maybe if more of us...

[JRscooby]

lots2seeinmyrv wrote:



They are a FRACTION of the population we have in this country. It will never work here.

I hear this kind of statement often, and on a lot of subjects. Nobody ever explains why something that will work in most of the developed world, Americans are not smart enough to do.

You want "socialism"...plenty of successful (LOL) countries to go to.

But, contrary to what most of us where taught, and what we are told everyday, if you look at what policies are in place not what they tell us, the USA is swinging toward "Government of the people, by the corporation, for the corporation. In years past, the "democracies" and the "socialist" banned together to fight that form of government, under another name.

[lane_hog]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

lots2seeinmyrv wrote:


Update yourself:

Finland Government Collapse


You want "socialism"...plenty of successful (LOL) countries to go to.

Are you kidding me. This publication's says in it's headline: ...Rush Limbaugh... highlighted (our work).

Beejus, Rush is an economic expert now? For chrissakes, Limbaugh was told by his parents that he need to drop out of college after only two semesters because they don't want to waste their money anymore on his tuition having failed all his college subjects (including, the rumor says, Ballroom Dancing). LOL

"You... plenty of... countries to go to." Is this the part where you will be chanting "Send (him) back!" and "Lock (him) up!" lol

Since you seem so triggered by the fact Rush Limbaugh referred to the original source, here's the same story from the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47496326

I suppose they are also biased?...

[Charlie_D_]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
Let’s also update ourselves and not be scared-sh*tless with the word “socialism”. It’s not the 50’s or the 60’s anymore where this means Soviet Union, China, Cuba and North Korea. The new economic-political system now refers to it as the old-fashioned Communism and, Socialism currently is referred as Benevolent Capitalism or Democractic Socialism modeled by the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, etc. These countries have been surveyed to be the happiest and healthiest on earth with free college, universal healthcare, 48:1 CEO to worker pay gap (US is 354 times average worker), and comfortable social security pensions for seniors.

Well-If you could convince American's that Finland's personal income rate of 51.6% and sales tax rate of 24% and Corporate rate of 20% along with Norway's 31.5% personal tax rate, sales tax of 25% and Corporate tax rate of 22% is a good thing. I think those who work for wages would be opposed Those who pay no or little taxes would like it and those are the voters the "Free Stuff", Free College, and Free Medicare politicians are courting.

[philh]

Admin wrote:

Yeah but my hammer is out and laying on the table.
Don't screw it up folks :E

Admin
RV.net

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMOB2K78iM

[dewey02]

Admin wrote:

Yeah but my hammer is out and laying on the table.
Don't screw it up folks :E

Admin
RV.net

Thor...don't be afraid to use that mighty hammer! This "non-political" (cough, cough) thread needs it.

[Admin]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Actually, I'm amazed, the exchange is civil and touches only on political personalities because of the intersect of economics and politics -- thus so far, to extreme political partisanship for this to be zap worthy. We also thank the moderators for distinguishing the nuances.

Yeah but my hammer is out and laying on the table.
Don't screw it up folks :E

Admin
RV.net

[Yosemite_Sam1]

lots2seeinmyrv wrote:


Update yourself:


Finland Government Collapse


You want "socialism"...plenty of successful (LOL) countries to go to.

Are you kidding me. This publication's says in it's headline: ...Rush Limbaugh... highlighted (our work).

Beejus, Rush is an economic expert now? For chrissakes, Limbaugh was told by his parents that he need to drop out of college after only two semesters because they don't want to waste their money anymore on his tuition having failed all his college subjects (including, the rumor says, Ballroom Dancing). LOL

"You... plenty of... countries to go to." Is this the part where you will be chanting "Send (him) back!" and "Lock (him) up!" lol

[lots2seeinmyrv]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Grodyman wrote:

Truth is, you need wealthy people to invest in businesses and corporations that create jobs. When you take away the incentive, jobs are lost and the system collapses (Socialism).

This is the myth that has developed since the '80s. I'm reasonably sure that if there is no demand for a good or service, there will be no investment in businesses or corporations to create new jobs. Instead the try to buy existing business, merger, cut costs (Workers). While Socialism is considered a foul word, if Capitalism is not regulated by Government, or IMHO better, strong unions, the wealth will be concentrated in fewer hands until the middle class is only people that used to be rich.

Hear, hear, this is a knowledgeable view. This is Keynes economic theory which Reaganomics tried to replace with trickle down – giving tax breaks for companies to invest and expand without the underlying consumer demand. We got instead bigger deficit, higher borrowings and eventually 3 recessions. Looks like history will repeat this time again.

Let’s also update ourselves and not be scared-sh*tless with the word “socialism”. It’s not the 50’s or the 60’s anymore where this means Soviet Union nor Russia. The new economic-political system now refers to it as Democractic Socialism modeled by the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, etc. These countries have been surveyed to be the happiest and healthiest on earth with free college, universal healthcare, 48:1 CEO to worker pay gap (US is 354 times average worker), and comfortable social security pensions for seniors.

Update yourself:


Finland Government Collapse


The government has collapsed over their FREE stuff.

It is not FREE, they pay the high taxes for it.

They are a FRACTION of the population we have in this country. It will never work here.

You want "socialism"...plenty of successful (LOL) countries to go to.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Grodyman wrote:

Truth is, you need wealthy people to invest in businesses and corporations that create jobs. When you take away the incentive, jobs are lost and the system collapses (Socialism).

This is the myth that has developed since the '80s. I'm reasonably sure that if there is no demand for a good or service, there will be no investment in businesses or corporations to create new jobs. Instead the try to buy existing business, merger, cut costs (Workers). While Socialism is considered a foul word, if Capitalism is not regulated by Government, or IMHO better, strong unions, the wealth will be concentrated in fewer hands until the middle class is only people that used to be rich.

Hear, hear, this is a knowledgeable view. This is Keynes economic theory which Reaganomics tried to replace with trickle down – giving tax breaks for companies to invest and expand without the underlying consumer demand. We got instead bigger deficit, higher borrowings and eventually 3 recessions. And Bush Jr double down on it and we got the Great Recession. Looks like history will repeat this time again.

Let’s also update ourselves and not be scared with the word “socialism”. It’s not the 50’s or the 60’s anymore where this means Soviet Union, China, Cuba and North Korea. The new economic-political system now refers to it as the old-fashioned Communism and, Socialism currently is referred as Benevolent Capitalism or Democractic Socialism modeled by the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, etc. These countries have been surveyed to be the happiest and healthiest on earth with free college, universal healthcare, 48:1 CEO to worker pay gap (US is 354 times average worker), and comfortable social security pensions for seniors.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

JRscooby wrote:

BillyBob Jim wrote:
""""""Again, this is not political.""""""

ROFLMAO................

Ok, just for you Who hit the most home runs in the last Super Bowl?

Actually, I'm amazed, the exchange is civil and touches only on political personalities because of the intersect of economics and politics -- thus so far, to extreme political partisanship for this to be zap worthy. We also thank the moderators for distinguishing the nuances.

[JRscooby]

BillyBob Jim wrote:
""""""Again, this is not political.""""""

ROFLMAO................

Ok, just for you Who hit the most home runs in the last Super Bowl?

[BillyBob_Jim]

""""""Again, this is not political.""""""

ROFLMAO................

[Yosemite_Sam1]

lots2seeinmyrv wrote:
A little off topic, but not meaning to be "political", but I just don't understand why everyone thinks Pres Trump is somehow skating on his taxes.

... then how can ANYONE question anything about his finances.
We do not have a tax problem.

We have a spending and waste problem.

We have both spending and tax problem.

We have a tax problem when we can cover our deficit and start paying off our foreign loans if we remove all tax loopholes now estimated at $1.4 trillion a year (against Trump's deficit now jumping to $1 trillion a year).

It's Congress' oversight duty to look at the president's taxes as they did even in the past. That's why presidents voluntarily publishes their 10 years of past tax return even if not legally required to do so.

In this particular case, on suspicion that he is compromised:

Deutche Bank was convicted of money laundering for Putin and his crony's dirty money.

Deutche Bank is the only one lending money to Trump organization when no other bank want to touch him with his 5 bankruptcies.

And of course the debatable that Trump is just too friendly, if not subservient to Putin.

[philh]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
As a first step, we can eliminate those tax loopholes for big business and the rich (I can incorporate myself and my vacation trip to Europe, disguised as meeting with a client, as tax deductible business expenses.

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.

1. Eliminate all corporate taxes.
2. Spending matches tax receipts, no more.
3. Flat income tax

Office of Management and Budget publishes the complete budget in an excel file every year. It is most interesting reading, especially when you look at interest and social expenses. Ever think the push to keep interest rates ridiculously low is in our best interest? It keeps the govt interest expense down... for a while longer. At some point, that expense is going to exceed tax revenue. It also has another bad factor, it does not allow for the "cleansing" of stagnate corporations. Corps that should have gone out of business years ago, continue to borrow and borrow and borrow at cheap rates.

It will all come down, I expect within 20 years.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

JRscooby wrote:

Grodyman wrote:

Truth is, you need wealthy people to invest in businesses and corporations that create jobs. When you take away the incentive, jobs are lost and the system collapses (Socialism).

This is the myth that has developed since the '80s. I'm reasonably sure that if there is no demand for a good or service, there will be no investment in businesses or corporations to create new jobs. Instead the try to buy existing business, merger, cut costs (Workers). While Socialism is considered a foul word, if Capitalism is not regulated by Government, or IMHO better, strong unions, the wealth will be concentrated in fewer hands until the middle class is only people that used to be rich.

Hear, hear, this is a knowledgeable view. This is Keynes economic theory which Reaganomics tried to replace with trickle down – giving tax breaks for companies to invest and expand without the underlying consumer demand. We got instead bigger deficit, higher borrowings and eventually 3 recessions. Looks like history will repeat this time again.

Let’s also update ourselves and not be scared-sh*tless with the word “socialism”. It’s not the 50’s or the 60’s anymore where this means Soviet Union nor Russia. The new economic-political system now refers to it as Democractic Socialism modeled by the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, etc. These countries have been surveyed to be the happiest and healthiest on earth with free college, universal healthcare, 48:1 CEO to worker pay gap (US is 354 times average worker), and comfortable social security pensions for seniors.