# Not our National Parks



## try2findus (Apr 8, 2011)

Gee, I sure hope our Government reaches some sort of agreement and do not close our National Parks.  After all, they do MAKE money.  

This is the peak Spring travel time and I know there will be a lot of unhappy travelers.  I know that if we were planning to hit the road this weekend, we would be headed to a National Park.

Why can't we all just work together to get this budget thing done????


----------



## H2H1 (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Jeanie I know it will hurt most of us who use the NP. But we must cut down the spending that the previous congress and the president has spent. As usual us middle class will have to pay. I have to say "SHUT IT DOWN" ! It will only for a short time as it was in the last time. :approve:


----------



## LEN (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

You don't understand, IT"S what hurts they shut down(even if it makes $$$$$) so we feel good when its back. At our state capitol all the give-me's are protesting "don't take mine away"(the freebies). CRAP "I don't want to give up what I got, I don't get the give me's" Bunch of bleeding hearts mumble mumble----- work danmit like I did.


----------



## krsmitty (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks



> H2H1 - 4/8/2011  9:57 AM
> 
> previous congress and the president (Clinton) has spent.


----------



## TexasClodhopper (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

We won't save a damn thing if they shut it down. All those 'employees' will go on unemployment, have all that time off and the congress will create a bill when it's all over to pay them all 'back wages.'  No member of congress will dare not vote for it, either. Would that happen in the private sector?

And here we go again and again; around and around; sort of like watching the flushing of a toilet.


----------



## Triple E (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Well that is true Tex but on unemployment they will only get about 20% of their pay which is about what the private sector gets at their 100% pay.  So the way I look at it we will be saving 80%.


----------



## H2H1 (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

I don't know where the unemployment is coming from. I was sent home because of the last shut down and did not qualify for unemployment because there was no time frame as how long we was going to be out of work. The good part was we all got back pay for the time we was out of work. Tex is right they will vote to give back pay, and no one and I mean NO ONE will vote against it. It so they are creating political suicide.


----------



## Triple E (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

What I do not understand, during the shutdown, the government pension will continue to be paid but the military will not.  Is this Constitutional?  :question:


----------



## TexasClodhopper (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Who cares about the Constitution?


----------



## H2H1 (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Steve the military will get paid. This is a ploy that Harry Reid is putting out hoping to show that the repub. are the blame. Let me say this one more time... THE MILITARY WILL GET PAID.


----------



## Triple E (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

I heard this from Mike Huckabee.  He stated that "our troops will not receive pay during the shutdown".  I sure hope you are right, Hollis.


----------



## H2H1 (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

They get paid every 2 weeks, there fore they have received the first paycheck on the 1st of the month The second will be on the 15 of this month and the day date is the 8th. there fore a budget will get passed and they will get paid on the 15th.


----------



## akjimny (Apr 8, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

I sent my niece some money because, while the military will get paid, there was a note on the commissary door that it would be closed tomorrow (Saturday) until the budget get passed.  She wanted to stock up instead of having to shop downtown.

Hopefully congress will do a collective cranial-anal extraction and get something passed, and hopefully the president won't veto it.  We just can't keep spending what we don't have. :angry:  :angry:  :angry:


----------



## TexasClodhopper (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Jim, where they are "cutting"; we aren't spending very much.

Answer this question (not picking on you, Jim).

Are you willing to have a 'means' test as a requirement for social services?

Or if someone even remotely suggests that SS/Medicare/Medicaid be adjusted, do you go off on a tirade similar to, "I paid in and I'm taking out!"


----------



## akjimny (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Tex, I have no gripe about means testing.  I also have no beef with mandatory drug testing for public assistance recipients.


----------



## try2findus (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

I agree with drug testing recipients of public assistance.  I also want drug testing for ANYONE who receives tax money as a paycheck.  The House, the Senate, and all other Public Employees.  

I'll bet if we clean out some of the trash, there may be jobs for folks who really want and need them.  Public office is a job, not a lifestyle for them and their family until the end of eternity.

I also feel that our SS should be based on WHEN we started working.  If the retirement age was 62 when I started working (at 16) then I should be able to retire at 62 with FULL benefits.  It is NOT fair to keep raising the age requirements on those of us who have worked all of our lives toward retirement.  :approve: 

Ok, the oxygen level is getting low up here, I'd better climb down...


----------



## H2H1 (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Ok Jeanie, I receive my retirement check from the Gov, which is tax money, so I need a drug test before I get another one? But there again I AGREE that if you are on public assistance program you need to be tested. But that would create an up roar from those who receive it. can you say PROFILE, or Racist, that would be what we would be called. :laugh:  :laugh:


----------



## Triple E (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Well I believe, only if anyone wants to know, that all government employees should be paid lower then the military.  They, the military, are the ones who put their life on the line for this country and they should receive the top pay.  When was the last time congress put their life on the line for our country?


----------



## H2H1 (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Steve I agree with you, our military men and women deserve better pay and better benefits.


----------



## try2findus (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

No Hollis, your service is over and you are receiving Retirement.  You have put in your time and have proven to be a valuable employee who DID his job.  

But I do believe active workers, should be able to pass a random drug screen in order to continue to "serve" the public taxpayers.  And I totally agree all public assistance should be contingent upon a CLEAN test.  

And also, agree the military deserves higher, no MUCH higher pay for their service.  

Hope I cleared that up.  Don't want you mad at me Hollis.


----------



## LEN (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks

Wait Wait Wait you don't understand   "totally agree all public assistance should be contingent upon a CLEAN test."  that is why 1/2 are on public assistance and the other half use that $$$$ to stay on the drugs.  3rd and 4th generation on Public Assistance give me a break. And they get free medical the wife and I pay out of pocket $530 each a month for.
Think my slogan like TEX drill baby drill will be "Die baby Die or work"
OFF THE BOX NOW

LEN


----------



## TexasClodhopper (Apr 11, 2011)

Re: Not our National Parks



Jeanie, there have been NO public proposals that I have read that have tried to do that. The main stream media (and certain political parties) have done a good job in making that ascertion, but every proposal to date has been to raise the retirement age on FUTURE retirees. 

Usually, there is some age picked to delineate which group has their retirement age raised. Even then the age is adjusted up by a year or two for each group.


The only reason to do that is to protect the funding for PRESENT retirees.

But you all see what I mean? Even in a small group like this, just bringing up the subject means that one has to start tiptoeing towards the exit! :clown:  

How will we ever get past this point and start doing something to save our country? Our past governments have squandered our savings and replaced them with IOUs that are becoming more worthless with our every breath. 




> try2findus - 4/11/2011  9:32 AM....  I also feel that our SS should be based on WHEN we started working.  If the retirement age was 62 when I started working (at 16) then I should be able to retire at 62 with FULL benefits.  It is NOT fair to keep raising the age requirements on those of us who have worked all of our lives toward retirement.


----------

