Senate vote public lands sale

[average]

Just heard back from our second congresswoman. She could not stay on message regarding the sale of federal lands. Sadly her email response was a two page hate filled diatribe against president Trump. Unfortunately that is why I can hardly stomach the current Democratic leadership ,and their one way message ,which is hate our president beyond any and all other successes or failures of our country. As others have mentioned term limits are needed to keep people like Mike Lee and these career politicians in check. I was saddened but also enlightened what my senators real agenda is, and seeing her true colors first hand.

Would love to see the text. Many can't seem to tolerate valid criticism of the current administration.

 

[mtwarden]

Good news. Daines says he has the votes to kill Mike Lee’s proposal (if the parliamentarian doesn’t)

https://www.notus.org/congress/montana-republicans-mike-lee-public-land-sales

 

[NRA4LIFE]

That is good news.

 

[Predator_SD]

No details, just devil. Oppose all public land sales. If they want to do a land swap that we can guarantee is “fair”, good luck, then I’m for it. We aren’t getting anymore public land, just more people.

And those “more people” refuse to stop spending so what’s your solution?

 

[cal30_sniper]

Not sure of the answer in getting the "no fed ownership of lands" mentality out of the party's platform, but something that definitely keeps it in there is radical anti-use ideologies, that the Federal government can be leveraged to implement when the left is in power.

Everything from anti-hunting, to anti-logging, to anti-mining, to anti-offroading, to anti-grazing ideologies, that all point in the same direction of a nearly religious belief that "the only good Earth is that which is untouched by human hands". "Rewilding" is the dogwhistle code word for that, btw. As long as an urban population in coastal cities can vote enough people into DC to get the Federal government to shut down public lands to anything that's not hiking, people will view the only safe thing is to take that power of "ownership" away from the Federal government.

Ironically, it's that fear of loss-of-use that is keeping Lee from privatizing it right now.

I don’t think it’s irony if you look at what the R party wants to use that land for.

The party itself (outside of pandering to their hunting and ranching constituent base) couldn’t give a hoot about public use or recreation of any form. Hence their willingness to either hand it over to the states or outright sell it to the private sector.

What they do care about (the fear you’re describing above) is losing the rights to resource extraction, and most of that focus is directed specifically to energy and mineral extraction. That’s why they’d rather sell it, because they know for every acre that’s privatized, resource extraction is almost certainly on the table.

The real cynic would tell you they care less about using those resources to build up the national economy and more to repay their big donors from the energy and mineral sectors. I tend to agree.

 

[cal30_sniper]

And those “more people” refuse to stop spending so what’s your solution?

Is there a link between the spending habits of the individual citizen and the national debt? That seems to be a significant leap.

Edit to add that if there’s any correlation, it’s the opposite of what seems to be suggested here (I.e. somehow more people spending = more national debt = sell public land to offset)

If anything, more people spending = more tax revenue = less debt != sell public land.

 

[Predator_SD]

Is there a link between the spending habits of the individual citizen and the national debt? That seems to be a significant leap.

Edit to add that if there’s any correlation, it’s the opposite of what seems to be suggested here (I.e. somehow more people spending = more national debt = sell public land to offset)

If anything, more people spending = more tax revenue = less debt != sell public land.

Spending does not just imply personal spending/debt though that is ALSO way out of control in the US. I mean for one, the people that will be buying the homes they want to build outside Vegas by in large can’t afford them. So if they actually spent what they can afford we wouldn’t be having a discussion about selling public lands to build homes on because they wouldn’t be looking to buy the land outside of Vegas to then build on it.

But spending also entails people spending taxpayer dollars in all sorts of frivolous and wasteful ways. Have you been paying attention at all? Americans vote for all kinds of frivolous wasteful Govt spending without a single thought about where that money is coming from. I mean, don’t ya know Govt money is FREE?

Just look at NYC right now. The Dems are supporting a guy promising “free” public transportation, “free” injection clinics (lots of lowlifes in NYC obviously), Govt run grocery stores, and freezing rent. So more spend spend spending of that FREE taxpayer money despite the country drowning in debt.

If people can’t stop spending then it’s time to liquidate assets same as your or I would need to do.

 

[cal30_sniper]

Spending does not just imply personal spending/debt though that is ALSO way out of control in the US. I mean for one, the people that will be buying the homes they want to build outside Vegas by in large can’t afford them. So if they actually spent what they can afford we wouldn’t be having a discussion about selling public lands to build homes on because they wouldn’t be looking to buy the land outside of Vegas to then build on it.

But spending also entails people spending taxpayer dollars in all sorts of frivolous and wasteful ways. Have you been paying attention at all? Americans vote for all kinds of frivolous wasteful Govt spending without a single thought about where that money is coming from. I mean, don’t ya know Govt money is FREE?

Just look at NYC right now. The Dems are supporting a guy promising “free” public transportation, “free” injection clinics (lots of lowlifes in NYC obviously), Govt run grocery stores, and freezing rent. So more spend spend spending of that FREE taxpayer money despite the country drowning in debt.

If people can’t stop spending then it’s time to liquidate assets same as your or I would need to do.

Not a single example you listed impacts federal debt.

The entire “housing” portion of this is a nothing more than a red-herring.

 

[Predator_SD]

Not a single example you listed impacts federal debt.

The entire “housing” portion of this is a nothing more than a red-herring.

Oh you’re right, blowing taxpayer dollars on frivolous useless things doesn’t impact federal debt.

My bad, let’s get back to spending

 

[WaWox]

Oh you’re right, blowing taxpayer dollars on frivolous useless things doesn’t impact federal debt.

My bad, let’s get back to spending

While I strongly oppose both free transit and subsidized grocery stores (or basically everything else on Mamdanis list of priorities), none of this affects FEDERAL debt.

NYC doesn't get fed money for this. They raise enough taxes of their own.

 

[Predator_SD]

While I strongly oppose both free transit and subsidized grocery stores (or basically everything else on Mamdanis list of priorities), none of this affects FEDERAL debt.

NYC doesn't get fed money for this. They raise enough taxes of their own.

Never did i say it does????

Those people with those mindsets vote in federal elections too you realize? And they vote and support the same worthless spending habits which is why i pointed NYC out.

 

[huntineveryday]

I got a response from Nebraska's other Senator, Pete Ricketts, this evening. Both of our Senators typically tow the party line with every vote, but I'm still calling and messaging them daily until this is out of the senate.

The response:


Thank you for contacting my office regarding public lands.

As you know, public lands offer valuable recreational opportunities and are powerful economic drivers for nearby communities. Many different land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service are responsible for managing public lands. Nebraska is home to more than 1.2 million acres of publicly accessible land. Nebraskans have a deep appreciation for the great outdoors, and I remain committed to ensuring these lands are managed responsibly.

My primary mission as your United States Senator is to make government work with proven Nebraskan solutions that are ready for America. To better inform my decision-making, it is important that I hear the ideas, concerns, and opinions of all Nebraskans. I appreciate the time and effort you took to provide input public lands and will keep in mind.




If you have any other concerns or need help with a federal agency, please do not hesitate to reach out. You can contact my office through the following ways:
· Phone: (202) 224-4224 or (402) 550-8040

· Website: ricketts.senate.gov/contact

· Kearney Office: 4111 4thAvenue, Suite 26, Kearney, NE 68845

· Lincoln Office: 1248 'O' Street, Suite 1000, Lincoln, NE 68508

· Omaha Office: 304 N. 168th Circle, Suite 213, Omaha, NE 68118

· Scottsbluff Office: 115 Railway Street, Suite C102, Scottsbluff, NE 69361

· Washington, D.C. Office: 139 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510


It is an honor to serve as your Senator for the great state of Nebraska.


Sincerely,

Pete Ricketts
United States Senator

 

[Yoder]

So, if they sell off this land will it really go to "low income" housing? Really? I'm sure they are going to build houses for $150k right outside of Bozeman where a shed costs $600k. They are so full of crap.

 

[nettereo16]

So, if they sell off this land will it really go to "low income" housing? Really? I'm sure they are going to build houses for $150k right outside of Bozeman where a shed costs $600k. They are so full of crap.

Yes, it's clearly bullshit. It will be used for 3-acre "ranches" for all the Californians fleeing to the mountain west.

 

[Carr5vols]

I emailed our 2 dem senators in Georgia both responded back they oppose the bill..not sure if it was just a response or the truth but we shall see.

.imo we need to raise the age for SS retiring in early 60s ( ok when SS was passed intonlaw people only lived a couple years after) is too many years of people getting money since the average death age is high 70s now. We need workers from this country and this would fix 2 items. Workers and cut spending. If you get unemployment check you earning that money somehow...picking up trash on roads, mowing elderly widow women yards, something. Not just hand out free money. Term limits on politicians and they can not leave office with more net worth than they started.

All great civilizations fall, and if something dont change quick we will fall also..

 

[Dirty530]

All this talk of reducing federal deficits won’t ever be achieved without:

A. Tax increases
B. Addressing the albatross of entitlement (Social security and Medicare spending)
C. Both

I personally support option C. But B will likely never happen because as much as the older generation like to complain about the new generations, they are a powerful voting lobby who won’t stand to lose their entitlements.

Selling public land would only slightly benefit the budget one time, it is not a long term strategy to manage the deficit/debt.

 

[Wheels]

All this talk of reducing federal deficits won’t ever be achieved without:

A. Tax increases
B. Addressing the albatross of entitlement (Social security and Medicare spending)
C. Both

I personally support option C. But B will likely never happen because as much as the older generation like to complain about the new generations, they are a powerful voting lobby who won’t stand to lose their entitlements.

Selling public land would only slightly benefit the budget one time, it is not a long term strategy to manage the deficit/debt.

Social Security does not add to the federal deficit, it is self funded and is in a deficit, but that is not part of the $36 trillion they talk about.

 

[CorbLand]

All this talk of reducing federal deficits won’t ever be achieved without:

A. Tax increases
B. Addressing the albatross of entitlement (Social security and Medicare spending)
C. Both

I personally support option C. But B will likely never happen because as much as the older generation like to complain about the new generations, they are a powerful voting lobby who won’t stand to lose their entitlements.

Selling public land would only slightly benefit the budget one time, it is not a long term strategy to manage the deficit/debt.

It won’t even slightly benefit it one time. Along with the sell of the land, there is a part to decrease the royalties for oil and gas. The sell of the land offsets that decrease.

 

[Roger17]

All this talk of reducing federal deficits won’t ever be achieved without:

A. Tax increases
B. Addressing the albatross of entitlement (Social security and Medicare spending)
C. Both

I personally support option C. But B will likely never happen because as much as the older generation like to complain about the new generations, they are a powerful voting lobby who won’t stand to lose their entitlements.

Selling public land would only slightly benefit the budget one time, it is not a long term strategy to manage the deficit/debt.

SS is hardly an entitlement. When I retire in 5-6 years, I expect SS, not because I feel entitled, but because it's mine. The average life expectancy in the US among all gender and ethnicities is about 77 years, so retiring at 62 gives 15 years of life left for retirement. The average SS check fluctuates between $1800 and $2000. Over those 15 years, that's $360,000. Over a career of working and paying into SS, with no choice in the matter, I could have made a lot more than that with my money investing it myself. So yeah, I expect to at least get some return for my investment. To not expect.that would be foolish of me. That's not entitlement. It's business.

 

[StuckInTheEast]

Social Security does not add to the federal deficit, it is self funded and is in a deficit, but that is not part of the $36 trillion they talk about.

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-securitys-41-trillion-hidden-government-deficit

Ill leave this here since Ive seen the Social security comment a few times in this and other related threads. Im not gonna speak to agreement or disagreement with the sources politics, but this seems to be pretty neutral and its a relatively brief yet accurate, from what I can gather, description of how SS does in fact contribute to the deficit.
The other fact your over looking with SS is that its a way over bloated system being used is ways it wad not designed for.
There is no income limit on SS benefits after you hit full retirement age...
What that means is millionaires taking on far more than they need to live very comfortably just in investment interest and retirement plan distributions are still collecting a check.
That's not what the program was designed for and its a big part of why it runs a deficit and will be insoluble in a short time.
It needs major reform. If reformed properly, large portions of those funds could be used to pay down the deficit while not putting retiries out on the street while not increasing taxes elsewhere as your already paying that money in.
I think the big misconception is that SS is a government managed retirement fund for EVERYONE and you'll get your money back in retirement....If you think thats how it works or was designed to work your incorrect and need to do some homework.
If your worth a couple/few million at retirement age, you don't need and should not be entitled to a SS check IMHO I think thats a big gripe with SS for those that understand its intended purpose.

Anyways...I dont want to derail...just figured some may need to read this