Utah- what the hell?

[mtwarden]

I am more curious as to how this started out as feds owning grounds was too much government and now it’s being argued that we should pay more fees and have stricter punishments. Because some how that’s small government…

We’ve now officially come full circle

 

[Billinsd]

I am more curious as to how this started out as feds owning grounds was too much government and now it’s being argued that we should pay more fees and have stricter punishments. Because some how that’s small government…

How ‘bout them Dodgers?

 

[IdahoBeav]

How ‘bout them Dodgers?

They seem to be able to print money and postpone debts like the feds do

 

[Billinsd]

They seem to be able to print money and postpone debts like the feds do

Why do we pay taxes when the Fed prints money?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Why do we pay taxes when the Fed prints money?

That’s better put into two separate questions and a statement:

-Why do we pay taxes?

-Is that federal service necessary and producing the intended result?

-The Fed should never under any circumstance operate on a deficit.

However, people only care about the deficit when they are speaking on federal services and operations that they don’t care about. No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.

Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

 

[Predator_SD]

How do you want to solve the housing crisis? Every government solution is a disaster. Why not let the free market do it? I'm fortunate enough that I can afford to live in a highly desirable location in the Mountain West. It doesn't seem right that a yuppie like me can move into a booming area while working class (and I don't mean burger flippers. I'm talking tradesmen) native Idahoans are priced out and have to move to GA, Upstate NY, SC, etc. where they can afford to live. Meanwhile, the feds have millions of acres of snake & rabbit land locked up, land that could be developed to increase the housing supply, in turn lowering the demand and cost.

Build more cheap apartments UPWARD in scum cities run by Libs. Pack em in like roaches they all vote Lib so i say let em live like Libs in the big cities.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Build more cheap apartments UPWARD in scum cities run by Libs. Pack em in like roaches they all vote Lib so i say let em live like Libs in the big cities.

That’s already happening on a large scale, and it’s great, but it doesn’t produce affordable housing. It’s highly sought after and, therefore, expensive.

 

[CorbLand]

That’s better put into two separate questions and a statement:

-Why do we pay taxes?

-Is that federal service necessary and producing the intended result?

-The Fed should never under any circumstance operate on a deficit.

However, people only care about the deficit when they are speaking on federal services and operations that they don’t care about. No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.

Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

Because the cost to manage the ground is small compared to what is truly causing our deficit to increase. Endless wars in countries 90% of us can’t find on a map. Send money to counties 3 years ago nobody new existed. All of those things add way more than the cost to manage the ground.

Selling ground to reduce the deficit is short sighted. Yea, it will make it look good but it won’t solve the problem. Like replacing the sink because it doesn’t give you hot water.

 

[Predator_SD]

That’s already happening on a large scale, and it’s great, but it doesn’t produce affordable housing. It’s highly sought after and, therefore, expensive.

So build more of them smaller, less fancy eminities, cheaper fixtures etc until they aren’t expensive.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Because the cost to manage the ground is small compared to what is truly causing our deficit to increase. Endless wars in countries 90% of us can’t find on a map. Send money to counties 3 years ago nobody new existed. All of those things add way more than the cost to manage the ground.

Selling ground to reduce the deficit is short sighted. Yea, it will make it look good but it won’t solve the problem. Like replacing the sink because it doesn’t give you hot water.

^This is a perfect example of this:

. . .No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.

And a complete dodge of this:

Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

Nonetheless, the items you mentioned should also be slashed, but if they were or ever are, there will still be a deficit. The federal government needs massive overhaul and reduction, but I’m only arguing that hunters need to stop screeching at the idea of the fed selling a few acres of barren land, but this will never happen. Hunters will continue to respond with pitchforks and torches every time the green decoys call for them with doom and gloom cries about possible land sales.

 

[IdahoBeav]

So build more of them smaller, less fancy eminities, cheaper fixtures etc until they aren’t expensive.

That doesn’t reduce demand, and when real estate has high value largely due to location, it’s not going to be developed for less profit without government subsidies, which are always a disaster.

 

[CorbLand]

^This is a perfect example of this:



And a complete dodge of this:



Nonetheless, the items you mentioned should also be slashed, but if they were or ever are, there will still be a deficit. The federal government needs massive overhaul and reduction, but I’m only arguing that hunters need to stop screeching at the idea of the fed selling a few acres of barren land, but this will never happen. Hunters will continue to respond with pitchforks and torches every time the green decoys call for them with doom and gloom cries about possible land sales.

Once again, why is the answer sell the land and then overhaul things? Why not try overhauling things, and not selling the land? Why not cut the places that are actually contributing the largest to the deficit?

Do you replace the sink because it doesnt turn out hot water when you turn it to hot or do you replace the water heater?

Every time this topic gets brought up, it’s always about the deficit and how we can’t afford it anymore. When the reality is selling the ground won’t solve the problem. It’s putting a bandaid on it.

I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

In the context of this thread, we aren’t talking about a few acres. Along with, if you were to cut DoD spending drastically, my stock portfolio would take a hit, so cutting that is not something I “don’t like.”

 

[Predator_SD]

That doesn’t reduce demand, and when real estate has high value largely due to location, it’s not going to be developed for less profit without government subsidies, which are always a disaster.

Build coffin apartments like they do in China. Those are cheap and affordable and work for them.

The answer isn’t to spread urban problems out to the surrounding countryside. Transplanting urbanites and illegals to the country most definitely isn’t the answer to urban overcrowding. Build those coffin apartments a mile high.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Build coffin apartments like they do in China. Those are cheap and affordable and work for them.

The answer isn’t to spread urban problems out to the surrounding countryside. Transplanting urbanites and illegals to the country most definitely isn’t the answer to urban overcrowding. Build those coffin apartments a mile high.

It’s not an urban problem, and barren ground along a freeway, and especially adjacent to Boise/Vegas/SLC/etc. city limits, is not exactly “the countryside”.

I often wonder how many of these anti-development comments on Rokslide come from people living in rural residential subdivisions.

 

[Predator_SD]

It’s not an urban problem, and barren ground along a freeway, and especially adjacent to Boise/Vegas/SLC/etc. city limits, is not exactly “the countryside”.

I often wonder how many of these anti-development comments on Rokslide come from people living in rural residential subdivisions.

So you’re saying overcrowding is a rural problem?????

 

[IdahoBeav]

Once again, why is the answer sell the land and then overhaul things? Why not try overhauling things, and not selling the land? Why not cut the places that are actually contributing the largest to the deficit?

Do you replace the sink because it doesnt turn out hot water when you turn it to hot or do you replace the water heater?

Every time this topic gets brought up, it’s always about the deficit and how we can’t afford it anymore. When the reality is selling the ground won’t solve the problem. It’s putting a bandaid on it.

I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

In the context of this thread, we aren’t talking about a few acres. Along with, if you were to cut DoD spending drastically, my stock portfolio would take a hit, so cutting that is not something I “don’t like.”

There’s not a singular “answer”, and it’s not so much that selling land solves a deficit problem. It’s that the fed isn’t the answer to anything. The fed is a complete disaster, and claiming that barren, non-wildlife-critical land is better to remain in federal hands than private is delusional.

As for the extent and manner of potential land transfers/sales,

I won't speak to this particular bill or Lee's agenda, but allowing federal land to be sold and developed is not a bad idea as long as it is done with careful selection and honest consideration of critical wildlife habitat.

 

[IdahoBeav]

So you’re saying overcrowding is a rural problem?????

Overcrowding isn’t the best definition, but there is a shortage, i.e. high demand, of rural residential and outskirts housing across the west.

 

[Predator_SD]

Overcrowding isn’t the best definition, but there is a shortage, i.e. high demand, of rural residential and outskirts housing across the west.

So whose moving to these rural outskirts areas, rural people?

 

[Billinsd]

-Why do we pay taxes?

-Is that federal service necessary and producing the intended result?

-The Fed should never under any circumstance operate on a deficit.

We pay taxes because of the law created by Woodrow Wilson a hundred years ago.
Is what federal service necessary? Depends who you talk to.
If we are at war and our survival depends on operating on a deficit it’s ok by me, but nothing else.

However, people only care about the deficit when they are speaking on federal services and operations that they don’t care about. No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

Most people are self consumed idiots and don’t have the slightest idea how much in deficit we are and couldn’t care less if they knew. Only a tiny percentage of people understand and a tiny percentage of Republicans.
Why should a corrupt, incompetent, unelected, unaccountable, and indifferent entity be allowed to mismanage 650 million acres? Because most Americans are idiots and live in tiny self gratifying bubbles, oblivious to the world around them. Yes, the main logical answer does not include selling land. The answer to me is very complicated. Yes, the Feds should sell of land to pay down the debt. However, I don’t trust the Fed. It’s far better and appropriate for the Fed to transfer the land to the states to do what they see fit.

 

[Billinsd]

Build more cheap apartments UPWARD in scum cities run by Libs. Pack em in like roaches they all vote Lib so i say let em live like Libs in the big cities.

No one wants to live in dense urban centers of scum cities run by liberals, like LA, or Detroit. No one wants to invest in these types of ventures. My dad’s buddy bought a huge apartment complex in Compton in the 70s and lost his ass because the residents were tearing out the toilets and plumbing to sell and then accusing my dad’s buddy of being a slum lord because there were no toilets. My dad’s friend couldn’t keep up replacing everything and finally donated the mess to a charity. My grandad told me stories of apartments in Chicago in the 50s throwing their trash out the windows.

We are building EXPENSIVE apartments and condos in San Diego, that recently turned blue up towards the sky! People are packing in. The roaches are complaining about the cost, not being packed in, even though they can move back to where they came from or somewhere else if they are native.