Angeles National Park?
I didn't want to reply to this thread again, but after watching that Ken Burns National Park thing on PBS, I feel compelled to respond!
Again, this has nothing to do with wanting something for free. I don't know how clearer I can make this. The American people pay enormous amounts of taxes (trillion$$) for the federal government to do its job. The National Forest, National Parks and other federal public lands are the responsibility of the Federal Government. I have even cited SPECIFIC laws that state this for the FS and NPS. Therefore, the money needs to be appropriated from Congress (and most of it is). So why are we paying again? No one can give me a logical answer.
Actually the answer I get is: "you don't actually pay" and that "Taxes have not one dam thing to do with anything here in the state." Are you kidding me? I guess this is suppose to be some sort of cynical remark about how our taxes are not being spent here and being wasted somewhere else so we local people should just pick up the slack and pay our $30 to enjoy our precious local forest.
That's crazy. If the government is doing something wrong, you don't just accept it and let them keep doing it. But no, you want us to give them even more money! This makes no sense. If it's wrong, people need to complain and make them stop. I feel it's wrong, so I complain. But no, complainers are ass wiping cry babies. No, we should go outside and fight raging wildfires with our bare hands, leap tall buildings in a single bound and spread seeds and plant trees. Well, gosh that's super and all, but how does that fix the root problem of government accountability? That's right, in that regard, it does NOTHING.
And as corny as it sounds, I believe these places are national treasures and symbols of democracy. They should be free to all Americans in the sense that you don't have to pay a fee to enter or use them, AT ALL OF THEM. The cost to maintain them is TINY compared to the trillions in tax revenues and the billions and now trillions of dollars wasted on all sorts of other crap like subsidizing rich, thieving banksters. I've already proven this with actual facts and figures, instead of a bunch of childish name calling. Don't make me break out my charts like Ross Perot!
If some places are sensitive and we need to limit access, then do it fairly with a permit system that is equal to all.
Fees for nature create a class society where people who can pay, can see nature and people who can't, can't. But oh no Tim, we already have a class society. Some people have flat screen TVs and others don't! Are you saying we should socialize LCD TVs too? Of course not. This is not the same thing! We're talking about nature, which one no created and no one "owns." Nature was here before any of us were here. It's not something that should be traded like a commodity. It'll be a cold day in hell before I see Yosemite on the NASDAQ!
Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, albeit a progressive Republican, but he felt the parks should be for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. All of the people, not just the very rich.
Again, this has nothing to do with wanting something for free. I don't know how clearer I can make this. The American people pay enormous amounts of taxes (trillion$$) for the federal government to do its job. The National Forest, National Parks and other federal public lands are the responsibility of the Federal Government. I have even cited SPECIFIC laws that state this for the FS and NPS. Therefore, the money needs to be appropriated from Congress (and most of it is). So why are we paying again? No one can give me a logical answer.
Actually the answer I get is: "you don't actually pay" and that "Taxes have not one dam thing to do with anything here in the state." Are you kidding me? I guess this is suppose to be some sort of cynical remark about how our taxes are not being spent here and being wasted somewhere else so we local people should just pick up the slack and pay our $30 to enjoy our precious local forest.
That's crazy. If the government is doing something wrong, you don't just accept it and let them keep doing it. But no, you want us to give them even more money! This makes no sense. If it's wrong, people need to complain and make them stop. I feel it's wrong, so I complain. But no, complainers are ass wiping cry babies. No, we should go outside and fight raging wildfires with our bare hands, leap tall buildings in a single bound and spread seeds and plant trees. Well, gosh that's super and all, but how does that fix the root problem of government accountability? That's right, in that regard, it does NOTHING.
And as corny as it sounds, I believe these places are national treasures and symbols of democracy. They should be free to all Americans in the sense that you don't have to pay a fee to enter or use them, AT ALL OF THEM. The cost to maintain them is TINY compared to the trillions in tax revenues and the billions and now trillions of dollars wasted on all sorts of other crap like subsidizing rich, thieving banksters. I've already proven this with actual facts and figures, instead of a bunch of childish name calling. Don't make me break out my charts like Ross Perot!
If some places are sensitive and we need to limit access, then do it fairly with a permit system that is equal to all.
Fees for nature create a class society where people who can pay, can see nature and people who can't, can't. But oh no Tim, we already have a class society. Some people have flat screen TVs and others don't! Are you saying we should socialize LCD TVs too? Of course not. This is not the same thing! We're talking about nature, which one no created and no one "owns." Nature was here before any of us were here. It's not something that should be traded like a commodity. It'll be a cold day in hell before I see Yosemite on the NASDAQ!
Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, albeit a progressive Republican, but he felt the parks should be for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. All of the people, not just the very rich.
Theodore Roosevelt wrote:It is the preservation of the scenery, of the forest, and the wilderness game for the people as a whole, instead of leaving the enjoyment thereof to be confined to the very rich. It is noteworthy in its essential democracy, one of the best bits of national achievement which our people have to their credit. And our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.