Piper is Right on Land Issue!

[Cornhusker]

I notice on here many of you guys constantly minimize, Piper I do the same with Manny so I really don't have any room to talk. On one thing at least Piper is correct republicans at the state level in western states are and have been looking to gain control of and then sell off at a profit public lands.

Tell me it's a democratic politician issue as well and then show me the proof. I tend to find a lot more examples like in the SLC paper this morning of this being a republican idea than I do of democrats. I know you're going to reiterate that democrats are the liberal hippy B.S. That they want to keep the land public but ban public useage and keep it for wolves and snail darters or turn it into national monuments. Just show me where democrats politicians in the west are pushing to take it from federal management which is the first step in taking it permanently from all of us.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2575779-155/snake-oil-salesman-rep-ken-ivory

 

[NeMont]

Utards must love that they line the pockets of people like Ken Ivory and Ryan Benson with taxpayer money to get into fights that are idiotic. Utah gets what it deserves just wished they would contain the stupidity to their own state rather than let it leak into mine.

Nemont

 

[YBO]

I maybe wrong, but doesn't congress have to approve any major land transfer? If so, I seriously doubt that it will happen. Politics as usual.

 

[440sixpack]

Just because it may not happen doesn't mean the intent isn't there. so who will you vote for ? those who would do it if they had the votes ?

There is another way, have mouthbreathers like this tool make false claims as an excuse to place federal lands under state control which in states like Utah go directly to private ownership.


http://cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/gohmert-blm-keep-arrogance-well-cut-your-budget










Stay thirsty my friends

 

[Cornhusker]

Doesn't it figure that Gohmert a Rep. from Texas 47th out of 50 states in public land would lead the fight with misrepresentation.

YBO one thing to remember is some Politicians have the will IMO this is often backed by financial gains they can achieve if they can find the way.

Benson is a tool I started educating myself on his agenda a few months ago to me it is pretty clear if you pay attention to his actions what the ultimate goal is.

 

[YBO]

I wonder if eventually if this plays into the hands of LDS? Not making accusations, just thinking outside the box.

 

[440sixpack]

Ya think.












Stay thirsty my friends

 

[RELH]

On one hand you have some GOP lawmakers that want to sell off public land to pay off debts, and on the other hand you have Democrat lawmakers that want to tax all of us to death.

For example, one of our state Democrat lawmakers from the San Jose area is preparing a bill that will raise our gas tax another 20 cents per gallon. We are already #2 in states with the highest gas tax and will surpass #1 by a good margin with that increase. Also in the bill they will increase vehicle registration fees by 80%. This hike is supposed to be for road improvement in our state. But there is a big catch, there is a provision in the bill that allows the money to be diverted to the general fund and not earmarked only for road-highway improvement.
It is supposed to raise 59 BILLION in tax dollars statewide paid by every person, poor or rich that drives a car and owns a car.
Just by coincidence, liberal Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown's bullet train is supposed to cost 61 BILLION dollars and here is this 59 billions dollar tax increase that can be diverted to that project and he can say it is transportation related.
I leave it up to you to decide if one party is more deceiving then the other and could care less about the working stiff that votes them into office.

RELH

 

[440sixpack]

What you're saying is you'd sell your soul to avoid a tax hike. what a shocker.












Stay thirsty my friends

 

[RELH]

Dude what you are saying it is ok with you for a crooked politician to reach into your wallet at will and take what he feels is the right amount of money and it is even ok to lie to you about where that money will go. Are you really that much of a simpleton fool that will condone that behavior by people you put in office to represent you in a fair way?

RELH

P.S. my income is sufficient that it will not be a burden to me. What about all those low income workers that commute 30 or more miles every day to work and already have to pinch pennies to feed their kids and put a roof over their head. Am I wrong about the Democrat party has always tried to convince the people that they are for them and will look out for their best interest. Yeah! know, you believe that bull$hit also, just like a good mushroom supporter. In the dark and being fed cow manure.

 

[440sixpack]

Being a taco bender from CA you may not realize how important federal land is to those of us who live in the middle of it.

There is nothing more important to me , this nation is nothing without these lands. you chitbags aren't going to sell them as long as any real americans draw a breath.











Stay thirsty my friends

 

[RELH]

Are you that foolish that you believe the Democrats will not sell you out on the sale of federal land.
You can bet your bottom dollar that when the debt issue gets to the point of having to cut liberal welfare programs, the Democrats will do an about face and sell federal land before they will cut programs to the people that votes them in office for their handout.
The GOP is just looking at the option before it does reach a crisis point, the Dems will wait until it is a crisis and levy more taxes while getting to that crisis.

RELH

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-03-15 AT 11:45AM (MST)[p]
Selling off or allowing states to take over public lands doesn't lower the debt at all. That is the biggest red herring there is and it is stupid to sell/trade/turn over a national asset to states so they can squander it as they don't have the resources to manage the lands any better.

Cato from 1997
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa276.pdf

"To turn federal lands into an asset, rather than a liability, for taxpayers, as well as ensure that they will be managed with both commodity and environmental interests in mind, the lands must receive much better insulation from politicians than would be provided by merely transferring them from one political entity to another. Many people propose to achieve such insulation through privatization. Yet the huge subsidies provided to the nation's croplands that, acre per acre, are several times larger than the subsidies provided for federal land management, indicate that private lands are not immune to fiscal manipulation by politicians.

To Wit:

Summary: States No More Efficient Than Feds

Reviewers of state trust operations have reported that trust agencies tend to be fiscally responsible. That has led many observers to conclude that the states would be better fiscal managers of natural resources than the federal government. This review has shown, however, that most state natural resource agencies cost state taxpayers far more than they return to state general funds. The key to the profitability of state trusts is not that they are state but that they are trusts.

In fact, even some trusts lose money; the key to state trust profitability is either incentives provided by the legislature--such as funding limited to a fixed portion of revenues--or monitoring by trust beneficiaries. Funding natural resource agencies out of net revenues would seem to be an ideal solution to the problem. In effect,that makes the resource agency one of the beneficiaries of its management, giving the agency an incentive to return a profit to the treasury or to other beneficiaries. But no state legislature seems to have figured that out. In fact, state legislatures seem to be as prone as is the U.S. Congress to using resources to benefit selected users or interest groups,
such as ranchers or park recreationists

 

[Cornhusker]

The Cato report is spot on.

RELH-- Democrats are as selfish and short sited as republicans politicians are, they are much the same red or blue. What is different is some republicans at this Is their efforts to transfer the land to state control for better management, or to sell it to pay off the debt. ( no merit in either). In both cases this seems to be a party mantra not a plank in the platform yet but a party line.

Whatever it is it is of the highest importance and I will vote and pay attention to this issue accordingly. The conversion of control or the sale of public land is a very dangerous idea IMO.

 

[YBO]

Funny my liberal attorney bro-in-law thinks it a wonderful idea to sale off public land to balance the budget. He also thinks we need to legalize all drugs and tax the he'll out of it. My opinion: see Caitlyn Jenner post.

 

[RELH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-03-15 AT 08:58PM (MST)[p]Cornhusker, I do not like the idea either of selling off public lands, but it seems you so far has figured out this is not just a GOP issue and do not trust liberal Democrats any more then you do the GOP members who are pushing this idea.
I feel there is some public land that can be turned over to state control or even sold that is very margin in use by the public, but I would not trust our politicians to be the deciding factor on what, if any, land to be sold. Some of them would sell their own mother if it meant a buck in their wallet.

RELH

 

[triggerman308]

"Just because it may not happen doesn't mean the intent isn't there."

Did this statement really come out of 220's mouth?

I guess "intent" only matters if you are a conservative republican!

Liberal democratic intent to disarm our society doesn't matter.

I guess you didn't think before you let that one fly did you 220?

 

[440sixpack]

Good to see you're out on probation triggerdork. I'd give up my guns before my public land so what's your point?

This is a hunting forum we should need this debate if we were all sportsmen. and yes, it is the republicans and has always been the republicans taking shots at public land, ironically most of this land was protected by a republican, who fought republicans to make it so.

I'm always in awe of the man and inceasingly in discust with his successors.

This went out to members and measurers just this morning.

http://support.trcp.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=12641.0&dlv_id=25905









Stay thirsty my friends

 

[triggerman308]

they won't take our guns...
they can't take our guns...
the SCOTUS won't allow them to take our guns...
the Constitution won't allow it...
gun control is a figment of our imagination...


Like you said 220, although they might not succeed in their efforts, the intent is there. Did I get that correct?

So what you're saying is intent only applies to republicans trying to steal your public land but doesn't apply to liberal democrats trying to disarm the public?

Exactly what we would expect from a liberal, intellectually dishonest half-breed digger indian drunk, such as yourself! You just took a big ole crap and stepped in it.

Have a nice day!

 

[triggerman308]

Are you really trying to compare today's liberal democrats to Teddy Roosevelt? That's a laugh.

How things have changed in a hundred years. Teddy and the modern liberal democrat ain't the same animal 220. Not even close!

 

[RELH]

Dude I can see why you are worried about public land being sold off. It seems your state government sold off 3 parcels of land in the Elliot forest in Southern Oregon. Reason for the sale was because the expense to manage the forest was greater then the revenue it bought in.

Now there is a Oregon state bill, HB-3533, that will allow your state government to sell off more public land if passed.

There is one big issue that bothers me, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT YOUR STATE GOVERMENT BY A GOOD MAJORITY IS DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED FROM GOVERNOR ON DOWN????

RELH

 

[440sixpack]

TR was FAR closer to a modern liberal than he was to a modern republican. FAR CLOSER , but no not the same. you take what you can get.

RELH I am not opposed to selling small landlocked parcels and never have been. I prefer exchanges and that's how it's normally done.

I was a reluctant supporter of the Sutton Mountain exchange just east of me which opened up thousands of acres to the public in exchange for various isolated parcels which were uselss to the public.

I was reluctant because the landowner was a friend and I could hunt it anyway. now it's wide open and I don't hunt it anymore. but you clowns would have rather seen it all sold off and the public can go suck an egg.

Stop your BS, are you an outdoorsman or a wingnut? are you with B&C or the teabaggers? pick a side because the two are not compatible.










Stay thirsty my friends

 

[RELH]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-15 AT 01:31PM (MST)[p]Damn Dude, you and Obama are identical twins when it comes to flip flopping on some issues.

First you were adamant about the "NO" sale of any public land when it suited your agenda of bad mouthing the GOP concerning sales of public land. I will refer you to your post #10 about being a "Real American".

Now when your Democrats are exposed for the same thing, you changed your tune to one of half hearted acceptance.

The funny part is you can not figure out why we do not give any of your statements any validity. You are the clown of this forum and do not even recognize that fact. Did you and Obama go to the same school on learning how to LIE?

RELH

 

[440sixpack]

You go off your meds again ?


I never said I would oppose EVERY land sale . there are lands that are useless to the public and should be sold or traded . I know of many 40's and 80's landlocked in the middle of ranches that only BLM employess can access. trade or sell them. there are other lands that for one reason or another don't fit the mold for public use, do the same WITH public input. a trade the public is happy with can be found in most cases. often a line adjustment.


That is not what you and your butt buds are advocating. stay on topic .












Stay thirsty my friends

 

[RELH]

Ok Dude, what ever you say. We will take it under advisement and give it the credibility it deserves. Have a nice day and bottoms up to you.


RELH