LtWitte wrote:coloradokevin wrote:THIS THREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE A LIBERAL VERSUS CONSERVATIVE BOXING MATCH!!! CAN WE PLEASE TRY TO NOT LOSE THIS VALUABLE THREAD TO THE OFF-ROUTE SECTION?
I have friends in both political camps (liberal and conservative) and I have friends from both camps on either side of this issue (for or against fees). Instead of blaming the person's political party on here, perhaps we should stick to a discussion of the issue we are currently trying to address (fees or no fees; why and how). THANKS!!!
Why are people so afraid to talk politics? Are we afraid someone will be offended? The issue of trailhead fees is a serious political matter. We are all influenced by the different ideologies which drive the way we think. My point from the beginning has always been that the Liberal platform that we must typically raise taxes to address new needs (which I consider the deteriorating and crowded trails to be new needs to address), is not the answer. We don't need NEW FEES to address new problems. We need to take part of the $2.9 trillion and move it to where the needs are. ARE YOU NOT TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY?? Most people pay 20% income tax, 6.2% social security, 1.45% medicare, 6-9% sales tax, 3-5% property tax, and about 5% in other governmental fees (DMV, County Taxes, State Taxes, etc.) So in the end, you pay almost 50% of your income to the government! Why does the Federal Government deserve MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY beyond what they already get? Fees are a very bad idea because as one individual already mentioned, once they are implemented they will never go away and they will always go up!
My opinion on the tax situation was clearly stated in my other posts. Yes, I feel the government has enough money to operate the USFS without additional fees for users who want to hike in the mountains. That's why I started this thread.
Regardless, we gain nothing in this discussion by throwing the term "liberal" or "conservative" on someone in this thread, and claiming that such a label will determine where they stand on this issue. Rather, we'd be better off focusing on THIS issue itself, instead of derailing this thread into a soon-to-be-off-route argument about whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama should be the one who gets to screw up the country for the next four years.
You can't categorically state on this forum that liberals are for/against trail use fees, nor can you say that conservatives are categorically for/against these fees. This is an issue that crosses political lines, and when we start pointing the finger at people on the basis of liberal or conservative voting preferences, we tend to lose track of the issue at hand.
The one thing that unites everyone on this forum is the fact that we all value our time in the mountains. As such, we are also a group of people who probably have far more expertise on this subject than any presidential candidate (past or present), or any other Washington politician. Yes, there's obviously some politics involved in discussing any issue that involves government regulation, or taxation. But, we break down an effective discussion of the issue when we start making sweeping generalizations about how people feel on this issue because of their voting history.
Ultimately I feel justified in saying that such fees are unnecessary, and I also feel justified in saying that I shouldn't rightfully have to pay to hike on a mountain in the middle of nowhere. I can defend this argument with opinions and facts, and I can even go as far as discussing the issue of USFS funding. But, I won't help anyone address this situation by turning it into a sharply divided debate over who is liberal, who is conservative, and why.
Chicago Transplant wrote:
Liberal agenda: You want to use your public lands? Okay, we'll just charge you a use fee.
Conservative agenda: We can't afford to keep the lands open to the public, let's sell them.
Again, another statement which will merely cause people to defend their political party, rather than discussing THIS issue. There's no black-and-white one sentence statement that defines either political ideology, and plenty of liberal forum members don't want fees, and I don't think any conservative forum members are okay with selling off our national forests. Back to the topic, please.