Sunny Buns wrote:... I suggested we cannot afford another NP with the vast spending binge it would cause considering that the nation is already bankrupt. What is it about "bankrupt" that is so difficult to understand? ...

The nation is not bankrupt. Stay away from partisan hyperbole and stick with facts and maybe you'll get some serious discussion along these lines.

Flagstaff, Arizona, would not see the amount of traffic and accompanying spending it gets were it not for the Grand Canyon nearby, and a sizeable number of people come to the Grand Canyon precisely because it is a National Park. The name and status undoubtedly enhances its attraction to tourists. Thus, declaring the Grand Canyon a National Park has been an extremely good idea financially. The Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce would agree.

It is true it attracts a number of foolish people, but their money is green, too. Declaring the Grand Canyon a National Park may have ruined a small percentage of its area for development, but 99% of the Park is as pristine as it was 2000 years ago, and safe forevermore from short-term development.

We have the money, and/or the means to get the money. Whether through direct fees, or taxes, you'll pay for the park, or whatever designation it gets. People (e.g rangers, support staff) don't work for free. It is not money forever lost. It circulates. Thus, if the Jemez area in New Mexico ever gets elevated to a National Park, the initial costs isn't money down a hole, but an investment, and a fairly safe one, knowing that people will come there who might otherwise not have.

Sunny Buns wrote:Very good point. Thank you. I will stick strictly with the facts and here they are:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWastYDvN6E

Sunny, now you are just making yourself look asinine.