Schwarzenegger to Close 220 State Parks

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Yes, by far!

However I'm not sure I buy the implication that Schwarenegger is to blame for that or that the state would be in better shape had Davis stayed on.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

However I'm not sure I buy the implication that Schwarenegger is to blame for that or that the state would be in better shape had Davis stayed on.

No, perhaps not. Either way though, The economic meltdown is the fault of Republican policy - at both the state and federal level.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

No, perhaps not. Either way though, The economic meltdown is the fault of Republican policy - at both the state and federal level.

I know enough to dispute this at the federal level (I believe it shared responsibility between both parties but that it started with policies made during the Carter years, but that obviously isn't the subject of this thread), but not knowing the CA political structure, have the republicans controlled anything in CA for a while? I suspect they haven't but I don't know, so it's an honest question.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Republicans carry enough power in CA to force the recall of a governor? Republicans are pretty outnumbered in CA, aren't they?

Perhaps. But I was refering to the people who spearheaded the recall, and who did everything they could to demonize Davis because he was a Democrat.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I know enough to dispute this at the federal level (I believe it shared responsibility between both parties but that it started with policies made during the Carter years, but that obviously isn't the subject of this thread), but not knowing the CA political structure, have the republicans controlled anything in CA for a while? I suspect they haven't but I don't know, so it's an honest question.

Oh please... The Rebublicans got their wet dream of an unregulated market; and now we are all paying the price.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

However I'm not sure I buy the implication that Schwarenegger is to blame for that or that the state would be in better shape had Davis stayed on.

I don't know. That argument is as frustrating to hear as the "yeah, things were bad under Bush but just think how much worse it could have been under Gore or Kerry". There's supposing and then there's what is actually happening. Arnold is accountable for his state's economy, isn't he?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I don't know. That argument is as frustrating to hear as the "yeah, things were bad under Bush but just think how much worse it could have been under Gore or Kerry". There's supposing and then there's what is actually happening. Arnold is accountable for his state's economy, isn't he?

Do the words GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN have any relevance in this situation? Everyone everywhere is worse off.







(Ok, not "everyone" literately but you get my meaning)

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Do the words GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN have any relevance in this situation? Everyone everywhere is worse off.







(Ok, not "everyone" literately but you get my meaning)

Playing devil's advocate here...
So if things were okay globally, the current CA governor should take no credit in CA doing well. Because things are great everywhere, that's why things are great in CA?

--------


So what happens to the 80 million park visitors? Going to the parks are a cheap alternative to spending mucho dinero at places like Disneyland. Things are already depressing, why take away the parks on top of that?

I'm also thinking that these parks aren't closed forever, right? Just for now?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I'm also thinking that these parks aren't closed forever, right? Just for now?

Actually, I'm thinking this might make a great opportunity to see a bit of nature without all the tourists, rangers and other interfering factors.

At least for those willing to go it on their own so to speak.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

So what happens to the 80 million park visitors?

Errr, the overwhelming percentage of them will go to the parks. They are not shutting down the entire system after all....

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I'm also thinking that these parks aren't closed forever, right? Just for now?

I think the article said until 2010.

If the parks are going to be losing money then I don't have an issue with closing them. However, it seems that the costs to run are less than the profits made so it seems silly to close something generating revenue for the state.