Beck: Environmentalists "took the wolves out of Yellowstone Park," "absolutely hate people"
SUMMARY: Glenn Beck guest host Joe Pagliarulo described an Australian professor's proposal as "a baby tax to help save the planet," about which Beck said: "[A] lot of these environmentalists absolutely hate people." Beck also claimed that "it's these same kind of environmentalists that took the wolves out of Yellowstone Park." In fact, the gray wolf population in Yellowstone National Park was eradicated in the late 1800s and early 1900s by federally funded predator-elimination programs.
On the December 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Beck appeared as a guest on his own show to discuss an Australian professor's proposal that guest host Joe Pagliarulo described as "a baby tax to help save the planet," about which Beck said: "[A] lot of these environmentalists absolutely hate people." Pagliarulo later asked: "I do understand why they think that more people would hurt the planet. Why not off themselves? And I'm not suggesting suicide to anybody, but I mean, come on." Beck also claimed that "it's these same kind of environmentalists that took the wolves out of Yellowstone Park and said, 'Oh, it would be so much better without the wolves.' Well, they shipped them up to Canada. Now they had to put them back into the wildlife." In fact, the gray wolf population in Yellowstone National Park was eradicated in the late 1800s and early 1900s by federally funded predator-elimination programs. The National Park Service (NPS) says that "predator control was practiced" in the park and that by the 1970s, "scientists found no evidence of a wolf population in Yellowstone." Moreover, environmentalists advocated for the reintroduction of the wolf for decades before the government approved the reintroduction of wolves in 1994.
Contrary to Beck's assertion that "environmentalists ... took the wolves out of Yellowstone Park," the Yellowstone wolf eradication campaign began in 1914 after Congress appropriated funds for "experiments and demonstrations in destroying wolves, prairie dogs, and other animals injurious to agriculture and animal husbandry." According Douglas Smith and Gary Ferguson, authors of Decade of the Wolf: Returning the Wild to Yellowstone by (Lyons Press, 2005), it was Aldo Leopold, author of A Sand County Almanac, whose "land ethic" became a seminal treatise of environmental philosophy, who "first recommended wolf reintroduction for Yellowstone back in 1944" (Page 9). It was not until nearly 50 years later, after decades of advocacy by conservationists, environmentalists, and some scientists -- including a lawsuit by the Defenders of Wildlife that attempted to force the government to reintroduce the wolf --that the government agreed to study the possibility. The NPS notes:
In October 1991, Congress provided funds to the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to prepare, in consultation with the NPS and the U.S. Forest Service, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on restoring wolves to Yellowstone and central Idaho. After several years and a near-record number of public comments, the Secretary of Interior signed the Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for reintroduction of gray wolves to both areas. Staff from Yellowstone, the USFWS, and participating states prepared to implement wolf restoration. The USFWS prepared special regulations outlining how wolves would be managed as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. These regulations took effect in November 1994.
Since the launch of the reintroduction program in 1995 with a small number of wolves from Canada, the gray wolf population in Yellowstone National Park has thrived and numbered 136 by the end of 2006.
From the December 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
PAGLIARULO: Well, just when you thought Al Gore and his posse couldn't push the envelope on global warming any further, along comes Barry Walters, a professor in Australia who is proposing -- get this -- a baby tax to help save the planet.
The professor wants to charge parents 5,000 Australian dollars -- that's a little over 4,000 U.S. -- for every child after their second and about $700 U.S. every year for life. Better yet, under his plan, couples who get sterilized would be eligible for carbon credits. Yay.
Joining me now from Pittsburgh is the host of this very show and the author of An Inconvenient Book, Glenn Beck.
Glenn, I have three kids. You have four. You know, we've got a little something extra now. If our kids are acting up, we can say, "We had you even though we knew we were killing the planet."
BECK: Yes.
PAGLIARULO: This guy is out of his mind, no?
BECK: Yeah. Oh, this is insane. You know, a lot of these environmentalists absolutely hate people.
There is a story that I gave on the radio show a couple of weeks ago about a woman who was sterilized, had an abortion because she was hurting the planet. And her, I believe he's now her husband, gives her a card every year on the anniversary of the abortion, saying, "Congratulations, you helped the planet."
A lot of these people just hate people. And I've got to tell you, wouldn't this place be perfect if just all the people were dead?
PAGLIARULO: It would be so much better. The birds could sing.
BECK: Yeah.
PAGLIARULO: The trees could flourish; the cows could fart all they wanted. I mean, it would be fine.
BECK: You know, people don't understand. Humans are part of the circle of life. You know, it's these same kind of environmentalists that took the wolves out of Yellowstone Park and said, "Oh, it would be so much better without the wolves." Well, they shipped them up to Canada. Now they had to put them back into the wildlife --
PAGLIARULO: Right.
BECK: -- because it's part of the circle of life. We are animals ourselves.
PAGLIARULO: Well, it's all a pretty good design, right, Glenn? I mean, I'm not sure why these people -- honestly, I do understand why they think that more people would hurt the planet. Why not off themselves? And I'm not suggesting suicide to anybody, but I mean, come on.
So the real question goes like this. Is Beck just a complete and total moron or is he a LIAR that just hates environmentalists? IF there is third alternative explantion for why he got this so astonishingly WRONG, I am open to hearing it too.
Environmentalists do hate people. They think nobody should have babies, and if we do, we should tax them.
Well, at least they don't murder people, like neo-cons. They may hate people, but they're much more polite about it.
Good grief! Another stupid post that consists of a smear and nothing else.
I'm no moonbat, but it's not batty to think that, with most of our technology aimed at prolonging life, we're going to have to deal with overpopulation issues at some point.
i agree, though this guy sounds a little off the wall with his tax. but what few in this country want to address are the environmental effects of immigration, which is the main reason why our population is increasing by three million people a year. do the math on that. any gains we make in fuel economy, oil import reductions, air pollution, are going to be negated by an increasing population. birth defects have soared in china, a country awash in pollution. the rockefeller commission and the hesburgh commission [headed by the president of notre dame] recommended in 1972 that we stabilize our population and that there was nothing to be gained by further population growth. our population then was 205 million.
Environmentalists do hate people. They think nobody should have babies, and if we do, we should tax them.
I know of at least one baby your parents never should have had.....
My goodness you are such a moron. Do you actually think about the ignorance you spew out before you inflict it on us?
You were correct on the first one: "total moron". More important is what it says about cnn, the network that gives this total moron a prime time spot.
How do you ship a wolf to Canada? And why?
Did we trade the wolves for Bill Shatner and Bryan Adams?
Would you use the post office or UPS?
I know you'd have to put holes in the box?
I want some answers.
How do you ship a wolf to Canada? And why?
Use WolfEx. When it sbsolutely, positively has to howl there overnight.
Try to ship in multiples. Wolf packs are more economical.
I hear Blitzer takes Air Canada.
Beck made this week's editorial cartoon in the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/cartoon/dec-16-2007
Great- Beck is my hometown... maybe he's looking for a clue... or a job... I have no friggin' idea why CNN lets yahoos like these on the airwaves... they are factually challenged, make ridiculous comments and help NOBODY understand ANY important issues that are relevant today...
Well, just when you thought Al Gore and his posse couldn't push the envelope on global warming any further, along comes Barry Walters, a professor in Australia who is proposing -- get this -- a baby tax to help save the planet.Someobody pleaaase explain? What does Al Gore and global warming have to do with this?
Why does this guy make an idiot of himself every time he moves his chubby cheeks?
PJ,
Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.
---------
Hope that helps.
Sounds like Beck got called on his fact checking and rightfully so but the overall point of the piece, thatr this "Dr." is loopy and possibly hates people (and I think an argument could be made that some environmentalists like animals more then their own race...), seems valid.
OK. I guess the people hating is subjective but he's loopy.
Beck’s brand of discourse, and the fact that he’s rewarded with paycheck and pulpit, is a moronically apt example that our civilization is well into its twilight.
Or infancy?
Does this make China right then?
Do you get a rebate when someone dies and therefore uses less resources?
What about pet owners who not only own pets but breed animals? Should they not be taxed too?
Would horticulturists always be in credit?
No good proposing a baby tax without some kind of joined up thinking...
Anotheramerican: Sorry, I was busy posting another of my rants later down in this thread.:) Thanks for the education.
I can agree with the ”consumption of resources” thing – but worrying about the carbon dioxide emissions of humans (and here I see the global warming correlation) almost makes me want to side with GB on this! It seems like it is taking it a little too far. If you read my later post you’ll see why I don’t think a baby tax is such a bad idea - but this was solely based on the ”consumption of resources” argument.
Have there been any studies –( is it even known?) – what benefits there might be to the ecosystem by the removal of any of the dozens of other gases that we breath IN every time we inhale? There are offsets to everything. Even if it were something to worry about, I would think there are far more eminent carbon dioxide pollutants we should worry about now, before we start promoting mass executions. (Wow, Now I’m even sounding like a wingnut. LOL)Why does this guy make an idiot of himself every time he moves his chubby cheeks?
As Forrest Gump said, stupid is as stupid does......
If Glenn Beck thinks it's so bad to 'hate people' then he needs to stop being such a hypocrite.
Wingnuts and Moonbats.
Why is it that whenever the great thinkers on the right, like Beck and Hannity, want to prove their point, they find some obscure whacko moonbat to quote?
This to me smells of desperation on their part.
Because it's hard to quote Al Gore every day!
:-)
You mean Al Gore who was so right about everything, from global warming to the Iraq war, the Al Gore who won the Nobel prize--that Al Gore?
No. The other one.
That's pretty weak, to say the least. I guess a qualification for dislike from conservatives is being right.
i've seen a lot of the conservatives on here say stuff such as: i'm not a fan of gore, i don't like him.... they never get around to why.
Time will show Al Gore to be a fool. Nobel Peace Prize? Is that the same group that gave noted terrorist Yassir Arafat a prize?
More and more real scientists are coming out with the truth about man-made global warming:
Read this item from the Senate Subcommittee on Environment & Public Works
Maybe. OR, and I think it more likely. Time will show Global Warming deniers like YOU to be fools.
There are some interesting things in the report, but it is not from the senate subcommittee on environment and public works. It is from the "Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member."
that's correct. it's a site run by senator james inhofe of oklahoma, who is the recipient of large sums of money from the huge gas and oil interests in his state. these deniers are always posting it here.
As Kevino noted before me, this is not a scientific report. There is no peer-reviewed scientific paper that refutes global warming. Not one.
Look, I knew when I posted this link that, no matter what, it would come down to something funded by big oil - that's a given with you people.
But there are a lot of scientists quoted in the report. Are we to just write them all off as deniers and oil company shills? THe trend is clear: more and more scientists are coming out and speaking the truth. At some point, the "deniers" will out number the doom sayers.
Climate change is undeniable and we need to deal with it. Not by wasting money on things that will not change anything, but on the inevitable results: Let's get water to areas that may be the new deserts; Lets get people to start moving inland to avoid rising seas and larger hurricanes; And for gods sake, lets get air conditioners to the poor! THAT'S where we should be spending resources.
Ya, a lot of scientists are quoted, but they don't say much science. Mostly they're making political statements. Yada yada yada.
if you read some of the comments, a lot of them are along the line of: "well, there has been natural warming in the past....". no one has ever denied that. it's a non argument. the argument is whether what is going on is beyond the rate of natural change.
The problem with our environmental policies comes down to this: we treat the planet as if it had unlimited resources and could take unlimited amounts of our waste without damage. Neither of which is the case.
A complete change of attitude is needed, combined with vastly more efficient and sustainable energy sources and methods of production.
Irrigating deserts? We already do that, and it's unsustainable in the long run, in terms of energy and resources. Doing it on a larger scale would only increase the demand for oil, and cause more strife between those who receive the water, and those who have it taken from them.
Air conditioners to the poor? Won't do any good, since air conditioners use energy to keep rooms cool. Ultimately that would just make the problem worse, since they would generate more heat than they got rid of.
We can't solve this problem by sticking to the old ways of thinking. We must do something new.
that is one of the questions i have about ethanol from corn. it supposedly requires a lot of fossil fuel energy to produce an equivalent amount of fuel.
When I said "air conditioners for the poor" it is obviously hyperbole but the message is this: It is narcissistic folly to believe that we can somehow reduce carbon output and reverse or somehow impact global climate change. I believe that innovation, talent and resources of the industrialized world are being wasted trying to reduce carbon emissions when the REAL issue is adapting to the inevitable climate change. The fact is that global warming would open up vast areas of virtually uninhabitable land in Canada and Northern Europe to useful, farmable, productive land as was the case 1000 years ago when the Vikings settled on vast open space on Greenland, which back then was rich and temperate and green. It was the cooling trend in the "Little Ice Age" a few hundred years ago that brought famine, disease and death to much of Europe.
No place will be safe, unfortunately. Adaptation without mitigation will ultimately be useless. Nor are the two mutually exclusive.
It's cowardly and irresponsible to throw up our hands now and say, "Well, there's nothing to be done, even though there was plenty of enthusiasm to get stuck in this mess."
We did make this mess, despite what the denialists say. It's our obligation to try to clean it up.
there was no "vast open space in greenland". read this link which includes a commentary from the thirteenth century. it notes that only a small portion of greenland was free from ice.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e2-settlers2.html
I agree. There's plenty to choose from....kusinich, Paul, Clinton, Pelosi, reid...I mean, if you have points to make do you really need to to find and quote the Unimportant and Unknow?
Well if there ARE plenty to choose from, why isnt Beck choosing more wisely?
Because he's a partisan knucklehead.
*slaps forhead* THATS IT
"Dry drunk" also works.
I agree with your assessment, Beck is a partisan knucklehead.
Ha ha ha! Wow, a wholescale smear all at once! Just name a bunch of Democrats and classify them as whacos!
Oh, let me play that game, too! There is Bush, and Cheney, and Delay, and Limbaugh, and O'reilley, and Craig, and Senator Stevens, and ....
Wow, that's easy! Let's play name calling games all day long.
Let me clarify. I didn't mean to imply that the dems listed were wacos. I simply meant that if you wanted to find liberal viewpoints or ideas to attack you could pick somebody we all know with some importance.
No offense was meant.
Okay, sorry then. But you can see how one could misread your post? I did re-read it to make sure I got it right, but in context it seemed that Kucinich, etc. were so kooky that Beck could find easy targets in them.
No problem. It (my post) was poorly written.
Funny,
Apparently the game is a bit more difficult than you suggested. Looks to me like you didn't name any Democrats. :-)
I really enjoy your posts. :)
Is your signature a smilie :-) face?
Yea, whatever, AA. I think it was implicit that wholescale smears are stupid no matter who is the target. It would be equally dumb of me to respond to specific charge against a liberal by saying "There are so many lying, corrupt [fill an adjective] Republicans, like [fill in conservatives], that it is hard to keep track, and therefore this charge against a liberal doesn't matter."
I thought that was the type of attack Lolo was making, (though he wasn't).
Hahaha... touche'
As utterly ridiculous as this "baby-tax" proposal is - AND IT'S PATENTLY ABSURD - how the hell can you begin [what should be the worlds easiest argument] with "Environmentalists absolutely hate people." Does that really need to come into an argument against a tax that 99% of any audience would already agree is absurd? He goes after the world's easiest target, and still manages to kill all of his argument's credability in his first breath. WHO'S PAYING THIS MORON?! GOOD LORD, I COULD DO A MUCH BETTER SHOW! AT LEAST HALF OF IT WOULD INVOLVE EMBARRASSING PEOPLE LIKE GLENN BECK!
I'd watch at least once. :)
As absurd as the idea seems, why doesn't it appeal to conservatives? Wouldn't it discourage all of those freeloading illegal aliens from having more meal-ticket babies? Wouldn't it skew the demographic towards those successful, bootstrap-pulling-up go-getters that the GOP is supposedly comprised of?
Not that you were being serious in your quest for knowledge but the reason a conservative wouldn't like it is because it's a TAX.
Thanks, Lolo.I was hoping that one of the conservative posters would volunteer what I suspected; that all of those principles go up in smoke when the penny pinching, free-loading average Republican is asked to take a little responsibility and pay the bill for his actions.
HBL,
You answered your own question in your first sentence above.
What question does "Thanks, Lolo" answer?
Hahaha... keep going.
That's not even a question.Is this going to be another guessing game, AA?
AA answered your question in the first sentence above. Yes, he only wrote one sentence, but so what? When you have nothing to say, obfuscate and hope no one will notice.
HBL,
Sorry. I was referring to your quote, " As absurd as the idea seems, why doesn't it appeal to conservatives?" in answering your second post.
Hope that helped.
Ah, maybe I should have written "The absurdity of the idea aside, why doesn't it appeal to Republicans". This is like pulling teeth, but are you making another funny by implying that conservatives would not be attracted to an idea because it's absurd?
;0)
AA "thinks" he's made a funny, therefore he has.
Hunntington only wrote one sentence in the whole post.
That's quite a description of the "average" Republican. I'm not sure what principles you'rer referring to...
And your welcome. :)
I was talking about the principles of self-sufficiency , and conservatives anger at poor people benefitting by having children.The baby tax is actually a pretty solid capitalist proposal, making sure that those who work hardest, and can afford it, will prevail.
But the threat of taking away those same welfare benefits from themselves is unthinkable, not just because of the knee-jerk reaction to the word "tax", but because those same rugged individualist conservatives feel entitled to have kids without paying for them.
As some of our friends on the right are proving with their posts on this thread, some conservatives are pulling too much on something, but it's not a bootstrap.
I feel sort of bad for whichever staff members or interns here at MMFA are stuck having to monitor Beck's program. It must be almost as bad as those who are assigned to listen to Savage.
You guys need to ask yourself, does David Brock hate me?
;-)
I sort of do not feel bad for anyone who finds themselves in a civilian job that they come to abhor and subsequently do not take the initiative to resign and find something more appealing.
I sort of admire someone who dedicates themselves to a cause they believe in, even if they may find the task unappealing.
Pete my post was meant as a dig against Beck & Savage. I was joking around & trying to be funny by saying those at MMFA that get stuck having to listen to these two clowns should wonder if Brock hates them...
Oh never mind. Like they say if you have to explain a joke you're probably talking to a Liberal ;-)
Ok that was meant to be funny too :-O
BTW I don't know what the heck you were going on about.
LOL. I sort of get the point.
Are you kidding? This stuff is gold? "Enviornmentalists really hate people" (?!) MMFA is a bunch of (what was it?) Drunks, Vermin, Pedophilies, Hill-Billy's, Vagrants and stupid-heads? I'd LOVE a job where I got paid to listen to Beck or Savage (or O'Reilly, Limbaugh or Tucker or Coulter) and then get to call them out on all they're childish nonsense.
What I'd hate would be to have to listen to Brit Hume all day, which is like listening to a Zombie or Frankenstian's Monster read the news; or someone like Geroge Will, who has the nerve (and wit) to actually make an apparently well-reasoned argument. You know the bias/hypocrasy/misrepresentation is there, but you actually have to read and think and reserach a bit to find it! (And if reading George Will all day long doesn't give you a headache, reading ABOUT George Will all day certainly will!)
Does anyone else find it weird and creepy that Joe mimics Glenn PERFECTLY in every respect? The way he moves his head, facial expressions, tone of voice... it's like he's an impersonator.
As a single gay man without children, you can guess where I stand on this "baby tax" issue.
Since I first hit the workforce and started paying taxes, I have questioned the fairness of our federal payroll taxes. I remember, at age 15, comparing my check to a co-worker friend who just got married and seeing that he was paying less federal taxes and saying, “hey, that’s not fair”. Then in my early 20’s I remember comparing my check stub with friends who were married fathers and who were being paid an identical hourly wage - I was horrified. My thoughts were, Oh I see how it works – The more babies you make the less tax you pay – and it is by taxing me at a higher rate that the government is able to educate these kids in public schools being built and funded by MY tax dollars, bus them to and from school, and provide day care programs for the tykes.”
I was getting fewer benefits for MY tax dollars even though I was paying a higher tax rate. On top of all this, there were millions of “breeders” (a term used by gays for straight folks, sorry) who were having babies out of wedlock and draining my tax dollars all the more.
Talk about getting the “short end of the stick”! Maybe you understand why the gay movement is as strong as it is? Yet we are the ones accused of having an “agenda”? The agenda of the American government has always been to belittle and ignore the gay population, while using them to collect a disproportionate amount of tax dollars.
I’m all for a baby tax! I know that many of both my liberal peers, and all of my Christian Conservative friends (and I have many, believe it or not) don’t want to hear this, but If you can’t afford to bring kids into the world – then don’t! And don’t expect “SOCIALIST” programs paid for with my tax dollars to raise them - escpecially if you are going to put the same "socialist" labels on proposed programs that might actually benefit me - like universal health care.
<Off soapbox> I feel better now, Thanks!;)
Well put, PJ. As a non-breeding breeder, i used to feel the same frustration when I'd see co-workers checks.
When I was out in the field I was working as a foreman, doing longer hours and taking on much more responsibility than the guys on my crews, who pretty much all were married with kids.
Occasionally one would come to me on payday, pushing for a raise, using their paycheck as a sympathy prop.I'd show them mine, and offer to trade them on the spot. Sometimes the same cats that were using my tools and bumming lunch money from me were taking home 100 bucks more a week than I was.
Also wish I had a buck for every time I heard "You're lucky. You don't have kids".
Luck? maybe a little, but a lot of hard work. ;0)
There are obvious reasons why "families" are "encouraged" by the tax code. I've no doubt that both of you can figure these reasons out.
I'm guessing you mean to ensure that there are future taxpayers, but remember, that also produces tax-consumers.
Do you condone this part of the tax code, Lolo? Should reproducing be rewarded with tax breaks?
I believe families are encouraged to ensure that there are future entrepreneurs, governmental leaders, police officers, firefighters, soldiers, doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, scientists, farmers, inventors.... In other words, a sustainable foundation for our society.
But I guess it's easier to look at it as an evil conspiracy to get more money from single people with no children.
Pete, I'm not sure if you're directing that at me. If so, I hope you're not taking my comments too seriously.
In reality, I do care quite a bit about the future of the human race, even if it won't include any of my direct descendents.
I really don't spend any of my time thinking about evil conspiracies against childless people, I just wasn't wired with a strong "parental chip".I am awed by the sacrifices and hard work that goes into raising kids, but also realize having kids is something people do for reasons as selfish as my reasons for not having kids.
Forgive me for giving back a little of the flack I get for not having children- it's just meant in fun.
We're all in this together. If you think your kids classroom is crowded now, just think if I had 3 or 4 kids in there too! ;0)
LOLO: If this was 1800 A.D., maybe. (Gettin' a little crowded around here, no?)
No. It's not. Not around "here."
A while back I was working at Home Depot to get at least some crappy health insurance. Only to discover that my immediate supervisor had so many kids and was paid so little that his children qualified for socialized healthcare, more commonly known as Medicare. So the CEO made 1700 times as much as me, and my boss was sucking on the teat of the goverment. I am not that smart (which explains how I ended up employed at Home depot) but surely something is totally out of whack when the children of the employees of the second largest retailer in the world qualify for medicare, and the CEO is one of the most obscenely overpaid dooosh implements in the world.
PJ,
I doubt you'll find any conservatives religious or otherwise who will argue with your statement, " If you can’t afford to bring kids into the world – then don’t! And don’t expect “SOCIALIST” programs paid for with my tax dollars to raise them".
ANOTHERAMERICAN: It’s not the conservatives I worry about - it’s my own people. Feel like I’ve thrown myself to the wolves here.
The only point I was making in that statement was the overuse of the word “socialist” – how conservatives use it against health care - Like it’s something to be afraid of – when in fact there are more socialist programs in this country than you can count! (Public Schools being the biggest)
I’m not against families. And yes, I am sometimes envious when I see one that is functional. However these are so few and far between that my thoughts of envy usually don’t last too long! LOL
I also fully understand the need for procreation within families as citizens of the future – and why this is the reason for tax breaks. I’ve also seen plenty of friends and family struggle to make their family work and to make ends meet.
My argument was more an attempt to show some of my straight friends another side of an issue that they probably never think about. How it feels to be treated as a second class citizen, simply because you don’t fit into the “family guy” thing, and the logical arguments that someone like myself could make regarding taxes.
I’m sorry if I offended anyone, really.
No offense taken herre PJ. I enjoyed your perspective.
>>but If you can’t afford to bring kids into the world – then don’t! And don’t expect “SOCIALIST” programs paid for with my tax dollars to raise them - escpecially if you are going to put the same "socialist" labels on proposed programs that might actually benefit me - like universal health care.
That's amazingly short-sighted and selfish. Do you know how much money it takes to raise a kid, and how much time? If you want the human race to die out, then sure, we can stop trying to help families. Or, we can just make sure that rich families have kids. Or, to be realistic about it, we can just make a society where rich people can afford health insurance, good education, etc. for their kids, while the poor can't afford anything for their kids, so that the differences between rich and poor are excacerbated and we go back to a time like Dicken's England.
You tax money invested in schools is an investment in the future. As bad as schools are, if we get rid of them especially the primary ones, we will degenerate into a third world society.
FUNNYPANTS: I’m not against families – hell I’m part of one myself, really! I never said we shouldn’t procreate – just not like rabbits, or because it’s what all the other girls are doing.
I doubt we will ever have to worry about “only the rich” having children. But do you deny that our system isn’t being taken advantage of - especially in a disproportionate number of poorer families? Yeah, let’s give less fortunate people even more incentive to make even more babies by giving them tax breaks and free handouts. It makes no sense to me, sorry.
I never said I was against public schools – just pointing out the fact that, and reasons why, working people without children often feel “cheated” by the system.
Your whole” selfish” issue could be argued for a month. You want me to believe that having children is any less selfish than not? People have children thinking they will bring joy, happiness, companionship, sometimes fortune or fame, and most always someone to take care of them when they get old. None of these are “selfish” ideals of course. To quote one of my favorite conservative idiots, John Stossel - “Give me a break!”
>>But do you deny that our system isn’t being taken advantage of - especially in a disproportionate number of poorer families? Yeah, let’s give less fortunate people even more incentive to make even more babies by giving them tax breaks and free handouts. It makes no sense to me, sorry.
That's a bizzarre statement coming from a liberal-minded person. Yes, I do very much doubt this. I think the military industrial complex exploits our system much more than poor families.
If money were a factor in whether or not families had kids, then only rich people would have kids. Poor people have families mostly because of a lack of education, and because when you have kids, you tend to have less money. But if not having money disuaded people from having kids, then some of the most poor teenagers wouldn't have multiple kids.
As far as you feeling taken advantage of, I might suggest you look at other peoples' lives to get some perspective.
Well to use one of Glenn Becks favorites... I'm just sayin
There are a few "lefty" things that I guess I don't completely "tow the line" on. Child welfare (welfare as a way of life),out of wedlock births, and teen pregnancy, for example, are probably three issues that I would lean more "right" on. I don't believe in "free rides".
A single guy complaining about how much it costs to be single with no children. You don't seriously believe that having children is cheap, do you?
I wonder what you're extra taxes are in comparison to paying $1400 per month for daycare for two children. I wonder how your extra taxes compare to paying for your own child's college education.
Have you ever heard of the marriage penalty? I head it loud and clear the first time I did my taxes after getting married.
As far as you funding public schools, we ALL have a stake in a well-educated republic. It doesn't matter whether you have children or not. You depend on an educated populous to provide the people who protect you, govern you, build and maintain your infrastructure, and conduct the commerce upon which the society you take advantage of was built.
FMP and Pete, I don't know if PJ was dead serious, or was just trying to make a point, I was sort of joining in on the subject because it usually gets this reaction.
I'm sure we both know how much it costs to raise kids, and I have never seriously begrudged pitching in for those things that benefit others' children.My nieces, nephews and friends' kids dig me, as I try to help their parents out by using some of my time and money to make sure they're getting positive things in their lives (not to get too "it -takes- a- village on you here).
I mostly find it interesting that I'm told how easy my life is by people with children, but if I point out the benefits they get, I'm some sort of ogre.
Not to mention that having children is something that people do voluntarily, because it makes them happy.I'm happy to help support that endeavor, but at least I get to make a little joke here and there (especially to the conservative types) that I'm subsidizing their hobby. ;0)
I knew I'd make a stink - It's not the first time I've said things a majority of people don't like to hear.
Yeah, Lefty I guess I said most of it to get a rise. Sometimes people don't want to see the other side.
Voluntarily?
I can still feel that shotgun pressed against my spine and I'm a grandfather now.
King, when that shotgun was in your back, you had a choice.
You're right HB.
You'd think I'd have learned something.
I didn't learn much, since we had three more after that one.
Well at least they'll be a comfort to me in my rapidly approaching old geezer years.
worrierking, I hope that didn't come out wrong. I was only kidding that it was voluntary on your part to say "hold your fire!".
As voluntary as life-and-death decisions get, I guess.
I know you were kidding, HB, so was I.
Maybe if I had "held my fire" in the first palce,
I wouldn't have had to choose.
Sorry P.J I can't feel sorry for ya.
The wife & I used our *extra* money to raise 3 sons including putting them through college.
Bet your money goes to more fun stuff eh?
Including a bigger savings account.
Jeter, you really got that little pleasure raising your three (presumably) handsome & intelligent sons?
Or was it just the money that hurts.
(pre-emptive - I'm joking- like they say, if you're talking to a conservative, you probably should explain that)
Hehehe... aw now Beach you know I don't need any Pre-emptive warnings about jokes, hell you should know by now I laugh at just about anything ;-)
Of course you stealing my material is a tad upsetting....
Well now I suppose I don't really miss all those *things* I could have bought or vacations not taken because my *extra* $$ went to raising the kids.
Actually, and I'm being serious now, our 3 boys grew up to be fine young men...oh & yeah as handsome as their Dad :-)
"...our 3 boys grew up to be fine young men...oh & yeah as handsome as their Dad :-)"- jeter2
I'm so sorry Jeter. I hope they got mom's brains. ;0)
Ouch!
Geez Beach you always have a great comeback ;-)
Well kids it's time for me to head to my recliner with my cup of coffee & watch Hardball.
Play nice while I'm gone!!
jeter2: I think I used this arguement with you once before - assuming you were some fat-cat righty - and you set me straight. (Might have been someone else)
For the record, I live on under $2000mo. Social Security Disability for almost 10 years now. I know what it is to go from "quite comfortable" to "poor", since my salary was cut by 1/3 in one year's time when I got sick.
This IS my entertainment, or haven't you noticed? LOL
Hey PJ,
I was just pulling your chain. I guess when I don't include a winky face ;-) no one knows for sure...
There is of course no perfect system to assure absolute fairness when it comes to taxes.
Hell my boys are grown, but I'm still paying for public schools. My taxes go towards roads I don't use & a war I am against.
Ah well no one ever said life was fair.
God Jeter, you are so, so selfish! Man, people like you piss me off! You used your tax savings to put your kids through college, instead of giving it back to the oppressed, single, exploited people?
And how many sleepless nights did you spend when your kids were toddlers, meaning the next day you were less productive at work and someone else had to take up your workload?
Why do you hate gays so much?
I wasn't trying to make it a gay issue. It's more a "single childless person" issue. Gays just happen to fit that best (though not always as I know plenty of gay parents) , no?
And stop with that "conservative humor" between you 2 already - you're killing me!:)
Funnyman,
I hate & envy everyone who has more money than me ;-)
It is my belief that children are God's greatest gift! They sure do cost the most! :-)
ps. I'd give my life in a second for my kids. I will gladly go into retirement relatively dollar poor because we're raising a second set of kids. However I consider myself the richest man in the world because of them. The money my wife and I have spent because of them is nothing in comparison to all the joy and blessings they have provide us day in and day out. Having children has taught me what unconditional love really is all about. I wish everyone could experience the joy and love that comes from having children. They are a blessing.
"A lot of environmentalist absolutely hate people."
Hmmm...I wonder what The Beaver knows that the rest of us don't. And what does he mean by "a lot"...because if he means more than a dozen or so, then can we expect CNN Headline Junk News, featuring The Beaver to begin "The War on Environmentalist: They hate people!" Or how about, "America in Crisis: How to protect your children from environmentalists!"
This has got to be one of the most idiotic conversations in television history. If framed, however, it would make a very nice stocking stuffer.
Is this now what passes for commentary on CNN? As usual, Beck reverses his facts. Environmentalists are responsible for re-introducing wolves back into Yellowstone National Park in the 1990s. Does anyone introduce any reality into Beck's carefully constructed world of random, fictional utterances? Beck would be the most colorful guest in a lunatic asylum.
"In fact, the gray wolf population in Yellowstone National Park was eradicated in the late 1800s and early 1900s by federally funded predator-elimination programs."
How can these RW pundits just keep on making s@#$ up? Maybe he read about it in O'Reilly's Paris Business Review?