Originally posted by EladarThe moral dilemma you imply can be solved by insuring that the minimum wage is high enough to allow all wage earners some surplus capital. Ideally while pursuing other policies conducive to (nearly) full employment.
Not free, but subsidized means subsidized for those who have the extra cash. As long as you are one of those with the extra cash, then I can see why you have no problem with it.
Charging does keep out the wrong kind of people. It is a form of segregation.
Who are these "wrong kind of people"? I'll have to work out if I've seen many of them in Britain's free art galleries, museums and national parks.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignBoth charge admission.
The museum I last visited was the Detroit Institute of Art. There was not entry charge, although a contribution box was made available. The building was awesome, and I was there to assist with a kids chess club, which used one of the fabulous atriums.
The city and the DIA have fallen on hard times, and it will probably close, unless a privateer wan ...[text shortened]... gift, and the intention to build a $20 million penguin exhibit. Does this raise any questions?
Edit, "free" admission if you buy an annual membership.
Originally posted by EladarI see the thread derailed early on. The fees charged would more than make up the expense to run a park. The ones I have been to I would say the fees charged would pay the employees several times over. I understand what you meant by asking if they are privately owned by the government. The fact that they shut them down was a theatrical message to the public, because it cost them nothing, and probably caused a loss of revenue. Yes the government thinks it owns the parks and is denying the public access for the sole purpose of grandstanding.
Are the national parks simply a nationalized theme park system? Are they privately owned by the government?
With the close down and the government actively keeping people out of areas that are usually open and free to all it makes me question the system. It also makes me question how they should exist. Should people be forced to pay money to visit a nat ...[text shortened]... they exist at the moment, I'd say they exist for the government. This is inherently unamerican.
Originally posted by TeinosukeUntil you make sure everyone makes enough money to enjoy the parks, charging people admission is way of preventing certain people from enjoying the parks.
The moral dilemma you imply can be solved by insuring that the minimum wage is high enough to allow all wage earners some surplus capital. Ideally while pursuing other policies conducive to (nearly) full employment.
Who are these "wrong kind of people"? I'll have to work out if I've seen many of them in Britain's free art galleries, museums and national parks.
Who are the wrong kind of people? The poor dirt bags that others do not wish to be around.
Does making admission free mean that these people will take advantage of the parks? No, but it does mean that they have an actual opportunity.
Originally posted by joe beyserNice job trying to bring the thread back to the original theme.
I see the thread derailed early on. The fees charged would more than make up the expense to run a park. The ones I have been to I would say the fees charged would pay the employees several times over. I understand what you meant by asking if they are privately owned by the government. The fact that they shut them down was a theatrical message to the publi ...[text shortened]... thinks it owns the parks and is denying the public access for the sole purpose of grandstanding.
Originally posted by joe beyserI'd have to see the operating budget of the park as well as its gross receipts. Most parks of any size have capital improvements such as parking, sidewalks, rest rooms, possibly a nature center, and other facilities. There are ongoing expenses for electricity, water, maintenance, and such. Larger parks have capacity for handling emergencies (fires, heart attacks, etc.)
I see the thread derailed early on. The fees charged would more than make up the expense to run a park. The ones I have been to I would say the fees charged would pay the employees several times over. I understand what you meant by asking if they are privately owned by the government. The fact that they shut them down was a theatrical message to the publi ...[text shortened]... thinks it owns the parks and is denying the public access for the sole purpose of grandstanding.
The political reason for shutting the parks is for the people to directly experience the consequences of the congressional representatives' action or inaction. This should make self-reliance-loving conservatives happy at the park closures because they believe people should experience the effects of their decisions and not have things papered over by big government. But because Obama is involved, they criticize the closure.
Originally posted by JS357So you recognize the fact that this stunt is merely to cause needless pain to individuals, but you see nothing wrong with that kind of manipulation and abuse.
I'd have to see the operating budget of the park as well as its gross receipts. Most parks of any size have capital improvements such as parking, sidewalks, rest rooms, possibly a nature center, and other facilities. There are ongoing expenses for electricity, water, maintenance, and such. Larger parks have capacity for handling emergencies (fires, heart attac ...[text shortened]... hings papered over by big government. But because Obama is involved, they criticize the closure.
Wow.
Originally posted by JS357Do you think think the parks could stay open but have any improvements stopped temporarily? The purpose for government is not to play games and punish people for the actions of congress. If this is what they are doing as you suggest then Obama is a little tyrant that will bully anyone he possibly can. How impressive!!!
I'd have to see the operating budget of the park as well as its gross receipts. Most parks of any size have capital improvements such as parking, sidewalks, rest rooms, possibly a nature center, and other facilities. There are ongoing expenses for electricity, water, maintenance, and such. Larger parks have capacity for handling emergencies (fires, heart attac ...[text shortened]... hings papered over by big government. But because Obama is involved, they criticize the closure.
Originally posted by EladarChoices between morally questionable alternatives are necessary here. Both sides see the shutdown as the lesser evil. One side sees tolerating the ACA, to be the greater evil, the other side sees (what it calls) extorting concessions, to be the greater evil. I am of the latter opinion. Which are you?
So you recognize the fact that this stunt is merely to cause needless pain to individuals, but you see nothing wrong with that kind of manipulation and abuse.
Wow.
Originally posted by joe beyserMy reply to Eladar applies here. The one about morally questionable alternatives. The parks issue is piddling compared to cancer patients delayed from starting clinical studies. I don't know who decides whether employees are essential, but the NIH researchers would be, in my book. Don't you think we should be talking together like concerned citizens about this, instead of taking pot shots at each other?
Do you think think the parks could stay open but have any improvements stopped temporarily? The purpose for government is not to play games and punish people for the actions of congress. If this is what they are doing as you suggest then Obama is a little tyrant that will bully anyone he possibly can. How impressive!!!
Originally posted by JS357It's called following the Constitution. The House controls spending.
Choices between morally questionable alternatives are necessary here. Both sides see the shutdown as the lesser evil. One side sees tolerating the ACA, to be the greater evil, the other side sees (what it calls) extorting concessions, to be the greater evil. I am of the latter opinion. Which are you?
I understand your position: anything to fund obamacare. You support your lord in all efforts.
Originally posted by EladarCalm down.
It's called following the Constitution. The House controls spending.
I understand your position: anything to fund obamacare. You support your lord in all efforts.
You don't even understand the way spending bills happen. In actual practice, both houses often draft and pass a spending bill for a previously passed authorization bill, then negotiate conflicts. In order to comply with the origination clause, the house undertakes the formality of originating the bill and then the senate cuts and pastes and it goes back and forth from there. Many bills create discretionary funding which the executive branch controls, spending or not, in keeping with its duties. By no means does the house "control" spending.
I hope no one is relying on you as a constitutional authority, much less as an authority on the psychology of fellow posters.
Originally posted by JS357I was thinking more on the lines of shutting the TSA down if we are trying to save money on non essential personel. This is yet more proof the shutdown is for punishment and show.
My reply to Eladar applies here. The one about morally questionable alternatives. The parks issue is piddling compared to cancer patients delayed from starting clinical studies. I don't know who decides whether employees are essential, but the NIH researchers would be, in my book. Don't you think we should be talking together like concerned citizens about this, instead of taking pot shots at each other?