jmez
WKR
Does anyone really think the Fed would use proceeds from land sales to actually pay down debt? Did I miss something in Utopia?
Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Absolutely!! Completely overall the BLM and Forest Circus and cut them down 90% Do this first, BRILLIANT!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?
I thought the core issue is that the States should own and manage Fed land, because that is how the Founders intended and how things were until the vast lands taken from Mexico? Same logic as why do states manage their big game and not the Fed.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.
The Fed lands are not the core problem of the deficit. Selling them are seen as a means to pay down the deficit. However, it would buy us a short amount of time if we keep spending.I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.
No one is talking about a few acres, it’s millions. So, do you mean you are against cutting DOD because your portfolio would take a hit? I don’t like eating healthy and I especially despise living below my means!!!!!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.”
I certainly don’t believe it for a second.Does anyone really think the Fed would use proceeds from land sales to actually pay down debt? Did I miss something in Utopia?
Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk
People like me!!! : )So who’s moving to these rural outskirts areas, rural people?
I would love to respond to this post but honestly, have zero idea of what your saying.Absolutely!! Completely overall the BLM and Forest Circus and cut them down 90% Do this first, BRILLIANT!
I thought the core issue is that the States should own and manage Fed land, because that is how the Founders intended and how things were until the vast lands taken from Mexico? Same logic as why do states manage their big game and not the Fed.
The Fed lands are not the core problem of the deficit. Selling them are seen as a means to pay down the deficit. However, it would buy us a short amount of time if we keep spending.
No one is talking about a few acres, it’s millions. So, do you mean you are against cutting DOD because your portfolio would take a hit? I don’t like eating healthy and I especially despise living below my means!!!!!
Why would you expect most hunters to stop screeching about selling any public land they could hunt on? It’s not a few acres, it’s 650 million acres worst case scenario. I cringe at the thought of losing that much public land. I think it’s highly unlikely and would be a fraction of 650 million. Many real hard core passionate hunters will always respond with pitchforks and torches at any real or perceived threat. And this is a very logical response when having public land available nearby to hunt is more important to you than your country or your family’s well being. It’s more important than anything to some.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.
What I wrote was very complicated and long to understand for most people. You need to have the patience, education, reading comprehension, and age to understand. Of course it’s my fault I didn’t write it so it was easier to understand. I apologize.I would love to respond to this post but honestly, have zero idea of what you’re saying.
I COMPLETELY AGREE!! BruhI have no interest in buying any public land, and I hunt public land. I just refuse to only look at things as if myself and people that partake in the same recreation are the only type of people that exist in this country, and I’m not going to simp for the feds.
What I wrote was very complicated and long to understand for most people. You need to have the patience, education, reading comprehension, and age to understand. Of course it’s my fault I didn’t write it so it was easier to understand. I apologize.
It’s not a bad idea, it’s a fantastic idea!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.
Hey I think you and I actually agree on something in this thread.I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not trying to win a debate and can see your point. I often bite off far more than I can chew and get into the weeds sometimes. Definitely a lot of OCD, which is the core problem.I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.
You don’t have to be highly educated to criticize my posts. What are you highly educated in? I’m an engineer. I’m not trying to win an argument for or against the Fed transferring lands to states. I’m jumping in here and there making comments as I see fit, all over the place, yes. This is an extremely complicated issue and the solutions complex and there are many pros and cons.
Once the land is gone it’s gone forever. I’ve never seen “barren” public land as you state it there is always value to public land or someone who wants to enjoy it in some way.I was only mentioning education because you referenced it when you responded to Corb saying that he didn’t understand your comment.
I am also an engineer.
Yes, it is a complicated issue. It’s not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Not all land is equal. Some of it would better serve to be privately owned and developed. A lot of it absolutely should not be. State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year. The land was no different than nearby NFS land. Land that is privately owned is not an automatic no-hunting or pay-to-play operation. Last year, I killed a buck on private timber company land that is managed far better than federal lands. Privately owned wintering ground is often better for the animals than public, where the animals are disturbed by atvs/sleds, shed hunters, etc. There are also a lot of ranches that do a much better job managing wildlife than state fish and game departments do.
In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.
Wait, you mean “tradesmen, native Idahoans”?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.
Once the land is gone it’s gone forever. I’ve never seen “barren” public land as you state it there is always value to public land or someone who wants to enjoy it in some way.
But the idea that some land doesn’t have value in your eyes outside of developing it to increase the spread of urban sprawl ever further from urban wasteland epicenters just shows me you’re likely part of that problem. Cities are like cancers spreading ever outward destroying everything they touch. And that spread never wants to stop.
You mention land in close proximity to cities as being prime for development. But then once those lands are developed then the land surrounding those new developments becomes that “close proximity to cities” prime development land and the cycle continues. Those urban wastelands never stop growing and expanding.
It’s a crying shame when i drive by a spot that used to be wild and untouched to find subdivisions bracketed by Starbucks, strip malls, and fast food garbage.
That’s not progress brother. It benefits no one other than developers and urbanite hipsters that are causing the problems in the first place.
You probably wouldn’t shoot many deer on state land that was transferred and then sold.State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year.
In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.
No, i mean Liberal Roaches.Wait, you mean “tradesmen, native Idahoans”?
“Quite an exagerration” Been to the Denver area any time recently???? How bout LA, Chicago, New York City???? The urban wasteland extends out a 100 miles from those places now. Definitely no exaggeration and it’s coming to a small western town near you soon.This is quite the exaggeration you have here, but this land that you think is useful to some, it isn’t being used by anyone, unless you count dumping garbage and spinning donuts, homeless camps in a few places.
FYI, your entire existence depends on land that was once developed.