Jerry Brown closing 70 state parks in Ca.

[Sallow]

Why are Republicans complaining? This is what they want for the entire country.

Where do you get such silly ideas? Show me an example of republicans wanting any such thing for the entire country; and do try to compare apples to apples.

I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. - Grover Norquist

That work?

 

[idb]

The headline should be " Ca. gov. to eliminate security and maintenance in 70 state parks". What's going to happen? The greenies will assume that state parks will become a natural haven for wildlife while they will become a haven for criminals as the state deteriorates further and further into the 3rd world.

Yes, sad to say we will be closing many state parks for lack of funds....




However we seem to have enough money to pay for college educations of ILLEGALS in this state.

Another half-truth. Do you want me to explain that issue or will you? Do you know the facts and have chosen to lie by omission? Or are you a partisan parrot and don't know the facts.

I'd like it explained please.

 

[wirebender]

Califorinia, much as the nation, spends to much and collects too little. California also has the line item veto, so the deficit could have been avoided had the past Gov. exercised fiscal responsibility; he was too busy practicing family values with his maid.

Gov. Brown is exercising fiscal responsibility. The money is not there to fund everything. He attempted to put a minor tax issue on the ballot, not to raise taxes, but to continue to collect taxes which were set to expire. The Republicans refused to "raise taxes".

It's really that simple. The fact is the OP author isn't stupid, he is a partisan hack and a liar.

And you believe that cutting maintenance and security on public property that residents of the entire state as well as tourists ($$$$$) from out of state regularly use were the best cuts in a budget as massive as california's?

The first thing that comes to mind with the idea of cutting maintenance and security to parks in a place like california is fire. Fire is a very natural part of the environment there and left unattended, wildfires will be springing up far more regularly. This will result in expenditures in dollars and lives in fighting the fires and expenditures due to property damage that exceed the amount being saved by cutting security and maintenance. Factor that with the loss of tourist money and the savings isn't a savings at all. Unintended consequence.

California is where it is due to its massive, and unsuccessful social spending. That is where a smart govenor would look for wasted money, not in his department of natural resources.

 

[idb]

The headline should be " Ca. gov. to eliminate security and maintenance in 70 state parks". What's going to happen? The greenies will assume that state parks will become a natural haven for wildlife while they will become a haven for criminals as the state deteriorates further and further into the 3rd world.

Just what are these parks...and why do they need security?

 

[Sallow]

Califorinia, much as the nation, spends to much and collects too little. California also has the line item veto, so the deficit could have been avoided had the past Gov. exercised fiscal responsibility; he was too busy practicing family values with his maid.

Gov. Brown is exercising fiscal responsibility. The money is not there to fund everything. He attempted to put a minor tax issue on the ballot, not to raise taxes, but to continue to collect taxes which were set to expire. The Republicans refused to "raise taxes".

It's really that simple. The fact is the OP author isn't stupid, he is a partisan hack and a liar.

And you believe that cutting maintenance and security on public property that residents of the entire state as well as tourists ($$$$$) from out of state regularly use were the best cuts in a budget as massive as california's?

The first thing that comes to mind with the idea of cutting maintenance and security to parks in a place like california is fire. Fire is a very natural part of the environment there and left unattended, wildfires will be springing up far more regularly. This will result in expenditures in dollars and lives in fighting the fires and expenditures due to property damage that exceed the amount being saved by cutting security and maintenance. Factor that with the loss of tourist money and the savings isn't a savings at all. Unintended consequence.

California is where it is due to its massive, and unsuccessful social spending. That is where a smart govenor would look for wasted money, not in his department of natural resources.

No it ain't. It's where it is because they voted to constrict the ability of government to raise revenue and did stupid things like the "three strikes" law.

Prison is a service. Has to be paid for. You can't put someone away for life and not expect expense.

 

[wirebender]

No shit sherlock. I was a manager in a California law enforcement agency and understand very well how the state raided our revenue. Ever since prop. 13 California has had a revenue problem. In his first term Jerry Brown got rid of the Governors Mansion and drove a Plymouth (and not a new one). He was fiscally responsible; the next several Governors were not, and that included 22 years of Republican Governors and 5 years of one Democratic Governor - who got recalled. Remember, the governor of CA has the line item veto.

I am curious having never lived in california. Does the govenor there have the responsibility for the checkbook, or is it like my state where the state legislature has control of the money? If so, then like my state, it doesn't matter much what the govenor's personal politics are, the legislature can pretty much spend as they wish.

Now rather than know about the 22 years of republican govenors, I would like to know who was in charge of the check book for those 22 years. Did the republican govenors have republican houses and senates, or were they dealing with democrats spending money on social programs as if there were no tomorrow?

 

[wirebender]

No it ain't. It's where it is because they voted to constrict the ability of government to raise revenue and did stupid things like the "three strikes" law.

Prison is a service. Has to be paid for. You can't put someone away for life and not expect expense.

You clearly don't know any more about tactics for government to raise money than you do climate issues. California voted to constrict its ability to raise revenue by its hostile attitude towards business. Any state that hikes taxes on business runs the risk of losing that business and california, for the past decade or so has seen an exodus of business leaving the state because of its tax policies. Liberals just don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that you can't tax yourself into prosperity.

 

[wirebender]

Just what are these parks...and why do they need security?

You want to take your children out into semi wilderness to camp on public property with no rangers or a reduced number of rangers? You want to plan your family vacation from out of state to a park in california in semi wilderness with reduced security?

 

[MeBelle]

Just what are these parks...and why do they need security?

The parks don't need security, the people need security.

Lord knows that people could succumb to bear attacks, mountain cat attacks, falling off of clearly marked " Do not enter" danger zones, which humans, feeling like the super heros they are really not, think that rules don't apply to them.

 

[Sallow]

No it ain't. It's where it is because they voted to constrict the ability of government to raise revenue and did stupid things like the "three strikes" law.

Prison is a service. Has to be paid for. You can't put someone away for life and not expect expense.

You clearly don't know any more about tactics for government to raise money than you do climate issues. California voted to constrict its ability to raise revenue by its hostile attitude towards business. Any state that hikes taxes on business runs the risk of losing that business and california, for the past decade or so has seen an exodus of business leaving the state because of its tax policies. Liberals just don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that you can't tax yourself into prosperity.

Ever hear of silicon valley?

California does a brisk business and has a lively economy.

The wealth extractors are incredibly wealthy in California.

Conservatives try to act like they give a shit about the average joe..but they don't.

 

[MeBelle]

Just what are these parks...and why do they need security?

You want to take your children out into semi wilderness to camp on public property with no rangers or a reduced number of rangers? You want to plan your family vacation from out of state to a park in california in semi wilderness with reduced security?

Ummm, what happened to personal responsibility?
Do people need Yogi and Boo-Boo to protect them?

/sarcasm

 

[idb]

Just what are these parks...and why do they need security?

You want to take your children out into semi wilderness to camp on public property with no rangers or a reduced number of rangers? You want to plan your family vacation from out of state to a park in california in semi wilderness with reduced security?

What might happen?

 

[syrenn]

The headline should be " Ca. gov. to eliminate security and maintenance in 70 state parks". What's going to happen? The greenies will assume that state parks will become a natural haven for wildlife while they will become a haven for criminals as the state deteriorates further and further into the 3rd world.

Yes, sad to say we will be closing many state parks for lack of funds....




However we seem to have enough money to pay for college educations of ILLEGALS in this state.

Another half-truth. Do you want me to explain that issue or will you? Do you know the facts and have chosen to lie by omission? Or are you a partisan parrot and don't know the facts.

What part don't you understand or is not fact, or is a "half truth"?

CA is closing parks for lack of funding.
CA IS going to pay for illegal tuition for college.

DAVIS, Calif. (KGO) -- There was a major victory for undocumented students who want to attend college in California. Part II of the Dream Act passed the Senate on Wednesday, offering state financial aid for these students, but not everyone is happy about it.

Democrats pushed through the California Dream Act, Part II, allowing undocumented students going to a UC, CSU or community college to apply for publicly funded financial aid, like Cal Grants. They say immigration status shouldn't matter.

However, Republicans say it's not fair to spend limited tax dollars on students who wouldn't be able to work after graduating without a social security number. Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, read a letter from a concerned constituent.

"Before we begin taking care of non-citizens, I believe government should be asking is there more we can do for the citizens playing by the rules of our state," said LaMalfa.

Democrats push through California Dream Act, Part II | abc7news.com

 

[syrenn]

Califorinia, much as the nation, spends to much and collects too little. California also has the line item veto, so the deficit could have been avoided had the past Gov. exercised fiscal responsibility; he was too busy practicing family values with his maid.

Gov. Brown is exercising fiscal responsibility. The money is not there to fund everything. He attempted to put a minor tax issue on the ballot, not to raise taxes, but to continue to collect taxes which were set to expire. The Republicans refused to "raise taxes".

It's really that simple. The fact is the OP author isn't stupid, he is a partisan hack and a liar.

And you believe that cutting maintenance and security on public property that residents of the entire state as well as tourists ($$$$$) from out of state regularly use were the best cuts in a budget as massive as california's?

The first thing that comes to mind with the idea of cutting maintenance and security to parks in a place like california is fire. Fire is a very natural part of the environment there and left unattended, wildfires will be springing up far more regularly. This will result in expenditures in dollars and lives in fighting the fires and expenditures due to property damage that exceed the amount being saved by cutting security and maintenance. Factor that with the loss of tourist money and the savings isn't a savings at all. Unintended consequence.

California is where it is due to its massive, and unsuccessful social spending. That is where a smart govenor would look for wasted money, not in his department of natural resources.

No it ain't. It's where it is because they voted to constrict the ability of government to raise revenue and did stupid things like the "three strikes" law.

Prison is a service. Has to be paid for. You can't put someone away for life and not expect expense.

Do you live in California?

 

[editec]

The headline should be " Ca. gov. to eliminate security and maintenance in 70 state parks". What's going to happen? The greenies will assume that state parks will become a natural haven for wildlife while they will become a haven for criminals as the state deteriorates further and further into the 3rd world.

Look hasn't the the goal, all along? -- been to bankrupt governments to make way for the FREE MARKET CORPORATOCRACY?

Well, its working.

It hardly seems fair to complain about the fact that anarchy will break out here and there as civilization's lights are systemically turned off.

The transition from representational forms of government to the corporate Libertopian model will become a tad messy.

but this is clearly what some of us who hate government want so it is reasonable to expect that things like this are going to happen along the way.

We no longer on the road to serfdom, we're now on the road to anarchy which will, I have no doubt, ultimately lead us onto the road to totalitarianism.

 

[Sallow]

Do you live in California?

I lived there for a short time, my cousin, who's a multimillionaire, still lives there..and my mom just moved there.

 

[Sallow]

The headline should be " Ca. gov. to eliminate security and maintenance in 70 state parks". What's going to happen? The greenies will assume that state parks will become a natural haven for wildlife while they will become a haven for criminals as the state deteriorates further and further into the 3rd world.

Look hasn't the the goal, all along? -- been to bankrupt governments to make way for the FREE MARKET CORPORATOCRACY?

Well, its working.

It hardly seems fair to complain about the fact that anarchy will break out here and there as civilization's lights are systemically turned off.

The transition from representational forms of government to the corporate Libertopian model will become a tad messy.

but this is clearly what some of us who hate government want so it is reasonable to expect that things like this are going to happen along the way.

We no longer on the road to serfdom, we're now on the road to anarchy which will, I have no doubt, ultimately lead us onto the road to totalitarianism.

Plutocracy..

Come on..at least get it right.

 

[idb]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

 

[Sallow]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

Which in itself is hilarious. Rightwingers are always braying about the size of government and then when something breaks because government is shrunk they are the first to complain. There was a great example of that during the snowstorm in NYC. Right wing papers came down hard on the speed of snow removal. Why so slow? Man power at the Department of Santitation was down to historic lows. That's why. Not enough people.

There hasn't been any new major environmental regulations introduced since the Clinton era..and in fact Bush made it a point to look the other way regarding regulations. Taxes were cut to historic lows. And still..jobs were shipped out.

At what point do people simply say..

"It's because the rich are ******* greedy".

 

[syrenn]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

The problem is that this is CA and the home of the deep pocket law suit.

If a park does not have security or maintenance.... you can bet your life someone is going to fall on a leaf for lack of "maintenance" and the state will be sued for millions. Or someone will camp on top of a bear den and get mauled and sue for lack of "security"