I read posts like this and think "You can't make this stuff up." Then the facts come out and i realize that some of these folks on the right are so delusional that in fact they DO make this stuff up. With imaginations like this they shouldn't be wasting their time writing for the Grok. Go to Hollywood and start writing screen plays.

Mike,
The link you posted supports what I wrote and thwarts what you wrote lol. Nice going. I'm not sure you intended that. Evidently, you either didn't read the pdf you linked to or didn't understand it.

From the pdf you linked to (at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/docs/MediaAdvisory.BorderRefugeOpen.62010.pdf):
"On October 6, 2006 roughly 3500 acres, or 3% of the Refuge, was closed to public access due to human safety concerns." And it goes on, "At this time there are no plans to reopen this southernmost 3/4-mile wide portion of the Refuge...The Refuge will reopen the area at such time that it is determined to be safe for visitors."

Thanks for your support;0)

@Love NH,
What part am I making up exactly? The quote from Rahm? The decay of Detroit, Chicago, Gary? The 3500 acres being off limits? The sign that reads: "DANGER PUBLIC WARNING TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED... Visitors may encounter Armed Criminals.." If I made a mistake, I'll correct it.

3% of a park is closed to visitors, so scary. At this pace America will be lawless by the year 10,000

@Mike Healey - Just like all liberals, stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and the problems will go away or simply not exist. Welcome to Obamanation! $16,000,000,000,000 and counting!

Isn't the founding principle of the rights trickle down economic policies that deficits don't matter? It was Reagan who started all this crazy deficit spending, It was Clinton who reeled it back in again, and Bush who blew the budget again, it will be the Democrat President Barack Obama who pays off this Republican deficit.

Yes, keep telling yourself that its the Democrats who are delusional....

@Mike Healey - "President Barack Obama who pays off this Republican deficit."

Obama pays off nothing! Government only gives, that which it has confiscated from someone else.

I will pay off the deficit and the debt, my sons and daughters will pay, their children and their children will pay. Maybe some of the liberals will throw in a dollar or two (I'm not holding my breath on that one). Barry is not an asset to this nation, he is a tremendous liability, one that should of been shed a couple of weeks ago. But, then again, liberals have a very difficult, if not impossible grasp, of that which constitutes an asset and that which constitutes a liability. Hence, the outcome.

When Barry starts bringing more money in than he is spending, not in taxes; but, rather by growing the economy, he becomes an asset. Until then, he and his administration are liabilities to our nation.

It's all fun, until the money runs out. $16,000,000,000,000 and counting.

Joe,
The federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II. After all the hype of the election its good to get some facts in our heads again.
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm#ixzz2D3PxcWp2

"Mexican" wolves........am i right?.....

Just like the LARPERS(Live Action Roll Players) who fight with foam swords on the back side of Greeley Park each weekend, these basement bound bloggers all see themselves as Kings in a post apocalyptic world. No one ever sees themselves as the serf..

Jan,
As usual your nonsensical, risible posts amuse. Tell me, which voice in your head wins the argument? Because your non-sequitur postings seem to be challenging some arguments, just not any put forth in this space.

I personally enjoy Jan's comments. She is very measured in her approach, honest, and there's something humanist about her point of view on things. Even if you are right wing, Scott, surely you can appreciate a well-meaning, kindhearted, just person?

Detroit is an example of incompetent Democrats. Country is up next

http://www.degc.org/success-stories.aspx

Reggie,
just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. You actually need to have proof, evidence or some type of logical analysis. Magical thinking doesn't make something true.

The Detroit police union Scott? Your going to quote those socialists?

The problem is Scott, even if federal resources are available to put into the "no-go" zone, it's likely that Tea Party folk and Neoconservatives would be against that anyway.

Speaking of government resources, our federal government spent 90 billion dollars over the past decade in infrastrucrure in Afghanistan, that's under both the Bush and Obama administrations. That's not defence spending, but spending on roads, bridges, schools, utiliies in Afghanistan.

The reason why Gary and Detroit have a lack of resources is not because of the national debt, it's because people have left due to economic decline. The bulk of resources that go into local policing come from the local level, local taxes, not the federal level, so again, you are off the mark.

@Ray,I'll try again.
Your first and second paragraphs are irrelevant, so I won't touch on those.
Re: "The reason why Gary and Detroit have a lack of resources is not because of the national debt, it's because people have left due to economic decline."
Right, I agree with you. And that economic decline occurred because of a myriad of bad decisions. I'm not attempting explain those decisions. I'm using the result of those decisions, however, to illustrate that there are indeed "no go zones" that exist today, and that these zones have effectively seceded from larger society. I'm not speaking to decline's causality only its effect.

Re: "...bulk of resources that go into local policing come from the local level, local taxes, not the federal level..."
Again, we agree. I do not dispute that (I’m not sure what “mark” you think I’m trying to be on), but the finer point must not be overlooked. The resources come from the people of those areas. The same people in whose name the fed govt. amassed the debt. The people, localities, states are not immune from the effects of the debt as they are not constrained to federal government expenditures, but diffused throughout the economy. There are all kinds of fancy economic words that are uttered as a consequence of too much debt (e.g., deleveraging, devaluation, lower demand etc.) none of which mean "good times". My point is this debt is so crushing that more "no-go zones" might appear as economic choices are made.

@Ray, Ugh...no, that's not my premise. If it’s going to be put it in a nutshell, it might as well be correct. My premise is that the amount of never before seen debt (federal and not) we currently have, and are continuously acquiring, will choke our economy which will result in choices being made and eventually resulting in more "no-go zones". My premise is not what Ray stated it is, but what I just stated. The effects of the debt will not be constrained to just the federal level but, in reality, they will undulate throughout the economy (evidently I should have made this more clear in the "monetary arteries" paragraph. Noted.). Blight cities will remain, near blights will be become blights etc. None are immune.

Scott, you are just plain wrong.

The no-go zones in Gary and Detroit were not caused by national debt, they were caused due to the decline of industry.

The national debt did not cause the decline in the auto or steel industries. "Globalization", or rather industry expoiting cheap labor overseas and a lack of pollution laws in those places. This led to the abandonment of certain American industries.

You are arguing from the supply side economics point of view, which has been proven false.

The national debt tripled under President Reagan, and yet, supposedly the economy was great (I think it was due mainly to Reagan's defense spending, which is de facto Keynesian economics, which is government spending to bolster the economy.)

It's interesting that you haven't included in your essay the lost resources, in the trillions, due to the unecessary war in Iraq, or the 90 billion spent in Afghanistan on nation building (that 90 billion does not include spending on the war in Afghanistan, but only on roads, bridges, utilities, schools, etc.), because that also puts an extra strain on America's resources. The difference is that when the money comes out of our wallets for domestic spending, we get a payback in our investment because businesses use things we put our resources in such as roads, bridges, and policing. So we get a return on our money. But we get zero from the Iraq war.

Too much federal debt saps resources from the economy"

So you are an adherent of supply side economics.

The national debt; however, has not depleted resources to the extent that caused the decline of cities, nor have local taxes done the same. The decline of cities was not due to a lack of resources due to payment on the national debt or local taxes. The national debt and local taxes have not caused a "severe lack of resources" in cities that have these so-called 'no-go" zones. This was due to the lack of industry, and industry headed overseas to take advantage of cheap labor.

You haven't demonstrated that it was the national debt that led to "severe lack of resources" independent of these other factors, resulting in the no-go zone. You just can't ignore the other factors, especially when national debt has not led to the decline of other areas. There are cities in the US that are doing fine where unemployment is below 5%, despite the national debt.

And, your resources spent in Merrimack and at the state level have been re-invested in your community (as well as federal dollars). Better roads, policing, fire, etc., leading to more industry bolstering the economy. More industry in Merrimack means more resources available to Merrimack, thereby preventing this "severe lack of resources".

So since your wallet pays for the national debt and that of Merrimack, when do you predict Merrimack will become a "no-go" zone ?

Ray,
Re:"You haven't demonstrated that it was the national debt that led to 'severe lack of resources' independent of these other factors, resulting in the no-go zone." Naturally, as the essay I wrote (not the one you read) does not make that claim so there would be no need to demonstrate that. Regarding this and your other points (save the war digression), re-read my responses to your previous comments as they apply to this one ... and probably all the others you post here as well ...to some extent.

Democrats do not read what is written. They read what they want to see.

@Swamp Fox, Ahhh that explains it! Thanks for the tip.

He writes articles for granite grok. They are just copy-pasted over here. So that's why they are on the extreme end of things. Unfortunately, it gives our community a bad name when you have folks running around spouting this stuff, as if that's something which represents Merrimack County. All you can do is what you've done- present a reasoned counterargument- and hope that people are not taking it seriously.

For the record, I'm in favor of the First Amendment, people can say what they like, it's just embarrassing for our community. It doesn't represent us. The election tells us that, if nothing else.

Ray, I'm not pretending. I really don't believe you get the point or have read what I've written. e.g,
1. I write you a response, " I didn't speak to the cause of Detroit's, Chicago's or Gary's decline, just the result of it.” and that they, “...all share in the suffering from lack of resources..” and that, “....payment on the debt exacerbates that problem ”
2. You respond with, "The reason why Gary and Detroit have a lack of resources is not because of the national debt,..",
3. I reply to that with, "I agree...And that economic decline occurred because of a myriad of bad decisions. I'm not attempting explain those decisions...." and that, "I'm using the result of those decisions … to illustrate that there are indeed 'no go zones'..."
4. Then you circle back to, "The no-go zones in Gary and Detroit were not caused by national debt, they were caused due to the decline of industry." Apparently, ignoring my previous response.
5. You the follow up with ,“You haven't demonstrated that it was the national debt that led to 'severe lack of resources' independent of these other factors, resulting in the no-go zone”. Which makes me believe you didn’t read or understand my responses,(lines 1 and 3, above) because why would you ask me to demonstrate something that I didn’t assert and actually contradicted?

I'm not pretending. I really don't believe you're capable of discernment. Good luck with that.
p.s. $16t of debt is a very real world term.
Happy Thanksgiving!

Thank you FTP. You are correct, the 1st amendment gives people the right to be frigid idealogues, who pontificate beyond all common sense..

Correct, you "don't claim that", but you MUST SHOW THAT to back YOUR claim that the national debt exacerbates local problems.

You are correct in that you don't understand how the resources from the national debt are used regarding local services. If you did understand that, then maybe you could show how the national debt affects local policing and or other services, and how the national debt exacerbates problems.

You cannot conclude that the national debt causes or will cause the so called "no-go zones" because you don't know anything, as you readily admit, about how the federal resources are used at the local level.

Therefore, your essay is bunk.

You readily admit you don't understand the cause and effect, therefore, you have no business trying to predict the future.

Ray, Unless you’re talking about some esoteric financial instrument, there is no such thing as “resources from national debt”. Debt takes resources it doesn’t disburse them. There is no “from” there. One can’t use resources from debt to do anything.

The national debt exacerbates the shortage of resources by claiming money that would have went for something else. This is known as the “debt burden” (google it). I don’t think I need to prove the “debt burden”, it’s pretty well understood and established. If you don’t believe me then ask the countries seeking debt relief why they’re doing so.

It’s also mistaken to confuse the entities that collect the resource (local, state, federal, etc.) from the source of that resource (person). The same person pays all the entities. With the debt burden, resources that would have paid local taxes, must also be used to pay debt. Thus it affects the local level.

To illustrate it is simple: There are two truths: 1. Resources are finite. 2. Debt must be paid back (including interest).
The more things that demand resources, the less there are of overall resources to use. Example: if we have 10 apples, and 10 kids. Every kid gets an apple. However, when the debt bully shows up and takes an apple, one kid doesn’t get an apple. Ask yourself which kid is more likely to end up without the apple, the rich well to do kid or the kid that lives in the sketchy part of town? That’s the argument in another nutshell.

I do and I have. Something as obvious as the following lines do not need to be further defined. I think people can put two and two together and understand what this means: "...once a dollar is payment on the debt, that same dollar cannot be then used for other things. As the debt begins to siphon funds from Federal Government responsibilities to the bondholders, that money cannot be used again, and choices must be made". You may not agree, but I'm fine with that.

You argue within a closed paradigm. The debt dollars are reinvested in the economy, expanding opportunities and allowing greater access to resources. You completely ignore this factor, as well as the historical record, which tells us that Detroit's decline happened over decades, and due mainly to the decline and relocation of the auto industry.

You're far more optimistic than I am. I understand the history, but we're amassing debt in numbers the world has never seen and there doesn't seem to be a stopping point. I've read the "if's and but's" articles about how it's not as bad as it looks, but I'm not buying it. I can't see a way out. You may, and you might be right (I hope you are), but I see troubled, hard times coming. Much harder than it is now. I can't square borrowing .40 on every dollar we spend with being good, sound policy. I'm just a software guy, but that doesn't sound right. Regarding the connection, I believe the article does show a connection: you can't re-use a dollar. So it stands to reason that a dollar used to pay the debt can't be used to benefit a community. I know you don't agree. Again, I'm fine with that.

The federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II. After all the hype of the election its good to get some facts in our heads again.
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm#ixzz2D3PxcWp2

The problem Scott, is the closed paradigm that you use.
The national debt dollar is not simply "consumed." Some is, that is some of the money is used to pay the debt service or it is somehow wasted. However, much of what the federal government does with our tax dollars enhances and promotes infrastructure, security, and safety. This in turn enables entrepreneurs to expand business and wealth, which in turn allows greater access to resources for the public at large.

Thank you Mike Healey for your input.

Obama's stimulus was 800 billion. When Bush left office, he increased the debt 4.4 trillion over 6 trillion, and of course, we had a deficit, which meant increases in the debt for the future . Much of the increased debt accrued under Obama's time was due to Bush's tax cuts and two wars, one of which we know was completely unecessary (Iraq), the other, was necessary to bring Bin Laden to justice.

There is, however, no evidence that the mounting national debt had a direct influence on the decline of Detroit, which is the theme of this essay. Common sense leads us to understand that the decline of the auto industry, which moved somewhere else, led to the abandonment of Detroit (which happened over decades, not over the last four Obama years).
...

Re: "There is, however, no evidence that the mounting national debt had a direct influence on the decline of Detroit, which is the theme of this essay." No, it's not the theme of this essay and nowhere in the essay does it state otherwise. The areas mentioned in the essay are examples of no-go zones, and it goes on to say that the areas became that way because "...problems simply overwhelmed the resources intended to control them." "problems" plural. It doesn't say the "national debt" caused the no-go zones, but it does say that I do suspect the debt will be added to the list of problems that result in more no-go zones.

Scott,
please re-read you own words, then figure out your essay theme:

"...but in effect secession has a chance to occur if we do not soon take an exit from the economic road on which we are currently speeding. We’re $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and nowhere in sight is there any curtailing indicator. As I and others have stated previously that once a dollar is payment on the debt, that same dollar cannot be then used for other things."

Then you say "Detroit is an example", that areas will soon secede "de facto".

My statement: "There is, however, no evidence that the mounting national debt had a direct influence on the decline of Detroit, which is the theme of this essay."

What I wrote Is right on target. You think the decline of Detroit, as well as your other examples, are due to mounting national debt, you think they will continue to decline and secede "defacto", yet you offer no evidence to show how this will occur or the link between the mounting debt and the "defacto" secession.

No, I don't "...think the decline of Detroit, as well as... other examples, are due to mounting national debt". Not only do I not think that, I don't state that anywhere. I think you're misreading. You skipped two paragraphs and are confusing tenses. I talk about the debt diverting resources and atrophied areas in the future tense. Then start on how "...towns and territories will be in the 'United States of America', but in effect it will be much different. It's already happening..." The antecedent of "it's" is "effect". And as example of the "effect" of things not quite in America, I use Arizona's no-go zone. I state the reason for the no-go zone as "...problems simply overwhelmed the resources intended to control them." I do not state that the reason is from the debt. I then go onto cite the cities as more examples of current no-go zones that effectively seceded. Again, nowhere do I mention that this is due to the debt. Then I follow up with essentially: if it's that bad now, wait until the debt kicks in and adds to problems that result in more no-go zones, again in future tense. I don't see how it can be read in any other way. I don't see how something not mentioned, nor implied, in the post can be misconstrued as the main theme, unless, of course, it's a misread.

And in 1962, segregation was the way of life in the south, with young black men subject to kidnapping and murder, while the justice system did nothing. And where registering to vote could get you killed.

Deal with it.

I acknowledge no such thing. Nice try.

Scott,
You readily admit you are all speculation based on ideology, in other words, nonsense.
You refuse to back up anything with real life evidence or proof.
You admit speculation based on ideology.
You don't realize you admit it.
Likely because you can't "deal with it."

Wrong again. I admit no such thing.