Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Campgrounds to close?

670 sites across the country may shut down

April 8, 2013

MARQUETTE — Federal sequestration budget cuts could negatively affect the summer tourist season in the Upper Peninsula with the U.S....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-08-13 10:43 AM

When things get tight for me, I have to make decisions and cut back. Why should the government be any different? Personally, I would cut a heck of a lot more than any silly sequestration is doing.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 11:11 AM

I Agree.

A first start would be my vote for the following:

Step number one would be to


your healthcare benefits, public or private

your social security benefits, and

your pension - public or private.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 2:50 PM

Ahmen, Retired!

I will say though, picking these national parks is not coincidence. It's agenda driven to try and further the agenda of the administration.

There are plenty of places to cut first. This just makes it more public and affects the most people so they get mad at those conservatives.

Hmmm, many folks have private healthcare and private pensions. Problem with SS is we don't have a bloody choice who controls that now do we. Wonder why that is?

Further above 65 you don't have a choice in healthcare benefits either. Hmmm, wonder why that is? One side ad nauseum talks about reforming these entitlements. One side ad nauseum refuses to lift a finger. Who's side you on?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 3:10 PM

Closing parks, will follow the pattern set down by Obama. It's all about make the sequestration cuts as highly visible, and as painful to the general public as possible. The fear of not doing that, is people may realize exactly how little 85 billion dollars in cuts really is, and demand more cuts! Eighty-five billion dollars out of a 3.6 trillion dollars budget, is like taking a cup of water out of Lake Superior, and running around screaming that it's going dry!

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 4:02 PM

For the sake of perspective,

the total amount of money spent by taxpayers every year on K-12 Education,


Eighty-Five BILLION DOLLARS and pocket change, that’s


Now, for the sake of perspective,

knowledgeable economists, and others

have come to the conclusion that business men, financiers, speculator’s, Wall Street, and others

amassed an amount of debt estimated to be pocket change in excess of


on spending for risk and speculation on


Somewhere along the line, these debts came home to roost.

Who Paid the Roosting Costs?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 4:08 PM

It’s not rocket science,

and you don’t have to wander in circles or wonder in circles either.

If you defend

the rich,

their tax breaks,

their corporations

then you must be a republican or a rich democrat.

If, on the other hand, you’re concerned about Legal Americans, taxpaying men and women, jobs, and our standard of living,

You won’t

be supporting the republicans and the rich anytime soon,

unless you want to turn back the hands of time, and

roll back our standard of living.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 4:39 PM

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 4:41 PM


Educate yourself about what modern economic theorists have to say about federal spending,

economic expansion, and economic contraction, constructive benefits and destructive non-benefits that help to even out the excess or recesses of the business cycle.

This would be a first step to gather information regarding government spending, fiscal policy, the economy, jobs, and economic growth versus economic contraction.

How much, and at what expense,

does globalization of businesses affect our GDP at home versus the bottom lines of global companies,

our standard of living, our jobs, and our educational, economical and social infrastructures?

Perhaps then, you will have an answer to your own question as to why the government has to be different:

“Why should the government be any different?”

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 7:12 PM


Sounds like you got the blueblood of the rich and republican mentality coursing through your head and veins.

Anything, at any cost, to make a buck at the expense of the public, and working for wages American men and women.


Spoken like a republican of true convictions...

Too bad, not the jail kind . . .

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 1:19 AM

Oh good Lord you have got to be kidding me!

Governments propping up an economy is NOT a way to make it grow. It's a way to set it up for disaster. Ever hear the term bubble? That is what you get. It WILL eventually pop, it's what bubbles do. So take your keynsian economics and shove them, they don't work and NEVER have!

How about we stop paying people to sit on their butts. How about we stop telling people they aren't capable of be successful.

Education, take what we spend and what we get vs what other spend and what they get. Just throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

Bottom line, you're blind if you don't think this move is motivated by an agenda to lead people to government dependency.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 6:38 AM

Actually, this is a ploy, like Obama hauling parents on Air Force One to lobby Congress against Guns, to get the public all riled up and have them yell and scream about 'cuts' - The truth is, those in the position of actually 'closing' the parks and recreation area are HOPING you'll be inflamed and yell - However, when their budges are CUT they don't have to CUT the things the Public wants.. they should be looking at their "OVERSPENDING" - The Parks are already built! - Why close em! Now as for Michigan, did anyone here buy a pass to the parks on their license registraion?... REFUND! REFUND!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 6:44 AM

Our City Government is no different - Look at the funds doled out to the DDA while our curbs and sidewalks are in terrible shape. Look at the money spent on a 'super highway' through the city.. and the gripe about "Shop Locally". Everyone talks, 'do something' about this national debt we have, but when it comes time to CUT spending - "Oh no! We won't cut the PAYCHECK to anyone.. Heck no!.. let's just TAKE something away from people and they'll raise a noise and march on City Hall or Lansing.. Did you buy a pass with your license.. Refund! Refund! (meaning there's money coming in for Parks, why are they being closed?!" Simply to rile the public..

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 9:34 AM

If, as you claim you have education beyond high school, certainly you have had a majority of these classes;

Micro economics,

Macro economics

Corporate Finance


Economics of Education

Money, Credit and Banking

Economics of Advertising

Economic Development

Economic Theory

Economics of Public Expenditures

Empirical Methods in Economics

History of Economic Thought

Human Capital and Economic Opportunity

Income Distribution

Industrial Organization

International Macro and Finance

International Finance and Open Economy Macro Economics

International Trade

Labor Economics

Public Finance

Mathematics and Economics

Public Economics and Political Economy

Political Economics

The U.S. Financial System

Economic Geography.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 9:35 AM

Fuzzy voodoo economics, like fuzzy logic and Vauches view of the universe.

When was the last time you ever heard the press, the media, or the government

report that they had invoked the Sherman Anti-Trust Act ?

If your education stopped at high-school you will have no working knowledge of


the market place,



the control of supply versus the control of demand.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 11:59 AM

Frog, have you? Cause I'm guessing you failed.

Oh, wait, with todays endoctorination in colleges you probably passed with flying colors. In the state we are in as a country I'm not sure it's logically to believe any economic theory to date. Certainly hasn't lead to great results.

I'll ask again as I did in another thread. Who would you apply the Sherman Antitrust Act against?

EStacey, I agree with your premise. The only problem with your comment is this applies to federal parks not state if I read it correctly. Does money for park passes from liscenses go to federal parks as well?

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 12:01 PM

Also, frog, if you think it will make a difference in your arguement start explaining. I mean I can go to a college course list and start copying course names.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 8:13 PM

From your nebulous,and indeterminate banter about the market place, statements are often made that are more often contradictory, which leaves a person puzzled about your comprehension of republicans‘ right to say everything in the big print, and take-away everything in small print, that they lied about in the big print, as a basis for good business practices.

There is a long list of economic topics, answers are puzzling when viewed against this check list.

The short answer is yes.

If you can’t see the examples or find room to apply the Sherman-Anti-Trust Act in the lexicon of capitalism, monopoly, and restraint of competition,

then you know very little in the way of beans about boston, or Washington.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 9:24 PM

“Bubbles” such as occurred during the melt-down, were grown by the PRIVATE SECTOR, not the public sector.

An economic bubble, sometimes referred to as:

a speculative bubble,

a market bubble,

a price bubble,

a financial bubble,

a speculative mania or a BALLOON,

is trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with actual "values".

It could also be described as a trade in products or assets with INFLATED values.

Since these ‘bubbles” were the product of over ambitious and falsely stated worth,

of course, by businesses, the rich and their corporations,

we arrived at the need of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

where MORAL (not immoral) business ty***** could no-longer, lie, steal and cheat their way to higher profits

at the expense of the “buyer beware“,

stupid investor’s and the general public.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 9:25 PM


Oh, gosh, vausch, I have heard of the term “bubble”.

Who coached you, and told you to use the word “Keynesian”?

To refresh your ideas about bubbles, I digress:

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 9:27 PM

the word, the press saw fit to exclude:


is really ty.c.o.o.n

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 9:47 PM


I've also heard of Keynesian Economics.

Keynesian economists at times state that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes

which require active policy responses by the public sector.

Especially with regard to monetary policy actions of the central bank and fiscal policy actions of the government,

in order to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Keynesian economics prefers a mixed economy,

predominantly private sector,

but with a role for government intervention during recessions,

and in the developed nations served as the standard economic model during the later part of the great depression, world war II,

and the post-war economic expansion 1945–1973.

Although it lost some influence following the oil shock and resulting stagflation of the 1970’s,

with the advent of the global financial crisis in 2008,

there has been some resurgence in Keynesian thought.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 11:50 PM

If you don't think governments can't create bubbles you all are foolish.

Prime example today is the current housing market. I ask, what is driving the housing market up? What is driving home prices higher?

Unemployment essentially unchanged. Millions of people on government subsidies. Growth at a virtual stand still.

What is driving the housing market? Low interest rates. Artificially low interest rates to stimulate the economy. What will happen when interest rates go up? The same dang thing that happened before.

Whiz, the post war practices lead us to the point we are in now. It's not good evidence to continue as we did then.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 11:27 AM

Once more, speculator’s jumped into the market to flip,

buying low and selling high, is just what drives their motivation,

a quick buck and absolutely no hint of GREED.

Obviously, your understanding of markets, fiscal, and monetary policy is somewhat depressed!

Also, people of position and excess assets, with ready available cash,

were able to commission the building of new houses,

and in many cases were able to buy real estate short, demolish structures, and create a home from what their wealth and asset position could now build.

BTW, your thinking seems to be "sequestered"

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 11:28 AM

What is driving housing markets,

is the fact that the real estate “bubble” burst,

and in many areas, foreclosed housing mortgagees created a glut of houses on the market.

Housing prices lost in many areas 40%, 50%, or 60% of their overstated market value.

Initially, the chief beneficiaries of the depressed housing market were people who had money “sequestered” from government taxation,

and were able to jump into the market and make a “killing” off the depressed and subdued market,

plus these people got the additional benefit of low interest rates.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 1:18 PM

The people who flip houses got burned by the housing bubble too, because the houses they were holding lost value, and they were just like anyone else who couldn't sell their over valued property. Few people continued to try to flip houses in the wake of the housing bubble, since it was such a buyers' market. There were plenty of cheap houses to buy, but with the market flooded most people who did buy would not buy a flipped house when it was just as easy to buy a foreclosed house themselves and do any needed renovations. Hence, the "buying low" part of your argument works, but not the "selling high" part. Flipping houses only worked well in a sellers' market when prices were rising. People flipping houses want to turn them around quickly, not get stuck paying taxes and upkeep while they sit on the market.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 27 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web