GOP Representative Cliff Stearns: "Sell off the National Parks"

[BreezeWood]

Why there are parks is to preserve our Natural Habitat for future generations - what better reason for a gov't is there than to insure our heritage ???

 

[Seawytch]

National Parks brought in $31 billion in 2010. NPs also employed over 200,000 in 2010.

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleas...to-Local-Economies-Supporting-258000-Jobs.cfm

 

[Vast LWC]

Printable Maps - Federal Lands

Lets see, the fed owns close to 30 percent of the united states........

"progressives" squatters would be happier if they owned 100 percent

The Feds own 90% of Nevada!

Who the hell is going to stretches of desert in Nevada?

 

[eflatminor]

Printable Maps - Federal Lands

Lets see, the fed owns close to 30 percent of the united states........

"progressives" squatters would be happier if they owned 100 percent

The Feds own 90% of Nevada!

Who the hell is going to stretches of desert in Nevada?

Those seeking to extract natural resources.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Feds own 90% of Nevada!

Who the hell is going to stretches of desert in Nevada?

Those seeking to extract natural resources.

Well yes but you know, most of the resources on public land are contracted out to private industry anyway. We (the public) retain ownership but the jobs created from any contracts to take timber or resources are still created. The only thing that transfers in a sell off of land for resource potential is that some corporation or individual takes the profits rather than the public.

 

[eflatminor]

Who the hell is going to stretches of desert in Nevada?

Those seeking to extract natural resources.

Well yes but you know, most of the resources on public land are contracted out to private industry anyway. We (the public) retain ownership but the jobs created from any contracts to take timber or resources are still created. The only thing that transfers in a sell off of land for resource potential is that some corporation or individual takes the profits rather than the public.

A few flaws in your logic. One, much of that land is NOT "contracted out" (aka leased) due to overly burdensome regulations that apply to public land. Two, the public does not take profits for leased land, only a fee, which is charged whether or not the company extracting resources makes a profit. Lastly, you've completely overlooked the revenue potential of selling land vs leasing it out...or not leasing it out as the case may be.

 

[Mustang]

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

Stearns wants to sell off public lands

These people are insane. They're blinded by ideology. They have NO common sense. They're stupid. I'll probably add more later.

ok, you have a better idea than just TAXING the life's blood out of the citizens to PAY our Dept?

I didn't know your life's blood was being taxed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who the hell is going to stretches of desert in Nevada?

Those seeking to extract natural resources.

Well yes but you know, most of the resources on public land are contracted out to private industry anyway. We (the public) retain ownership but the jobs created from any contracts to take timber or resources are still created. The only thing that transfers in a sell off of land for resource potential is that some corporation or individual takes the profits rather than the public.

We, the public, don't own anything. The government owns it.

 

[California Girl]

These people are insane. They're blinded by ideology. They have NO common sense. They're stupid. I'll probably add more later.

ok, you have a better idea than just TAXING the life's blood out of the citizens to PAY our Dept?

Well... there is always debt forgiveness. There is a Christian idea of debt forgiveness on 7 years, I think it is. Called "the Lord's release" I think. What if Christians that hold US debt just forgave it?

China ain't a 'Christian country', and they hold most of it.

Twit.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Those seeking to extract natural resources.

Well yes but you know, most of the resources on public land are contracted out to private industry anyway. We (the public) retain ownership but the jobs created from any contracts to take timber or resources are still created. The only thing that transfers in a sell off of land for resource potential is that some corporation or individual takes the profits rather than the public.

A few flaws in your logic. One, much of that land is NOT "contracted out" (aka leased) due to overly burdensome regulations that apply to public land. Two, the public does not take profits for leased land, only a fee, which is charged whether or not the company extracting resources makes a profit. Lastly, you've completely overlooked the revenue potential of selling land vs leasing it out...or not leasing it out as the case may be.

We're on different tracks... but both on a train!

I really wasn't talking about leases, although you bring up a good point. There are all sorts of leases to consider also. But what I was talking about is something like timber. We don't lease land for people to grow timber on. We grow it and then contract out the harvest. It's not a lease at all, but interestingly enough, at the same time we are growing and harvesting timber, we are also collecting lease payments for other management rights on the land. We lease the game management rights to the DNR for wildlife management. This opens up 190,000 acres in my district for hunting and fishing and recreational purposes. We have a lot of private clubs that own 500 - 1,000 acre tracts but many sportsmen can't afford the private membership fees that run into the thousands of dollars sometimes for those clubs. We also have a lot of horseback riding. Many horse owner just couldn't have their animals here if not for public land to ride them. It's not easy, even in rural area to find private land to ride. We have hiking and canoeing and kayaking and biking, we have 5 outstanding waterfowl area that I hunt a lot myself. I love working my dog but without public waterfowl areas, I wouldn't have that resource to use. The guys that have private deer clubs are pricey enough. Try hunting on a private waterfowl area. I can't afford Stutgart.

Our Forest here is not a high profile federal property at all. But it is the #3 timber producing district in the entire USDA / USFS system. We manage it well and it makes money. We use that money to manage the same land as multiple use recreation lands. It serves as the back yard for Charlotte, Columbia and Greenville / Spartanburg. Our folks I can assure get their money's worth out of the land and then some. I can only imagine what other communities with more high profile National Forest and Parks would say at the mention of selling their public lands. The only stuff I could see maybe being sold is some BLM stuff out west and like I said, I have an idea that land is nearly worthless as far as resources go. It has other worth, but probably not the sort that fetches a price.

 

[Sweet Willy]

ok, you have a better idea than just TAXING the life's blood out of the citizens to PAY our Dept?

Well... there is always debt forgiveness. There is a Christian idea of debt forgiveness on 7 years, I think it is. Called "the Lord's release" I think. What if Christians that hold US debt just forgave it?

China ain't a 'Christian country', and they hold most of it.

Twit.

I am sorry if I offended you.

China does not hold most of our debt. You are mistaken. In any case, the suggestion was not that "most" our debt be forgiven or that China forgive it's share. If you read those few relatively short sentences again, you'll find that I only suggested that Christians might forgive the debt they hold. I made no mention of any particular share of the debt.

Again, I am sorry for causing you to call names. I didn't mean to trouble you with that.

 

[Immanuel]

These people are insane. They're blinded by ideology. They have NO common sense. They're stupid. I'll probably add more later.

ok, you have a better idea than just TAXING the life's blood out of the citizens to PAY our Dept?

Well... there is always debt forgiveness. There is a Christian idea of debt forgiveness on 7 years, I think it is. Called "the Lord's release" I think. What if Christians that hold US debt just forgave it?

Just for accuracy's sake, that is not a "Christian" idea. It is an Old Testament (Jewish) Law and to my knowledge it has never been adopted as any Judeo-Christian law.

It is one of those Jewish Laws such as men not being allowed to trim their beards that we have never adopted. To be honest, as someone who literally hates to shave and has a very thick beard, I wouldn't mind adopting the no beard trimming law.

Immie

 

[Sweet Willy]

ok, you have a better idea than just TAXING the life's blood out of the citizens to PAY our Dept?

Well... there is always debt forgiveness. There is a Christian idea of debt forgiveness on 7 years, I think it is. Called "the Lord's release" I think. What if Christians that hold US debt just forgave it?

Just for accuracy's sake, that is not a "Christian" idea. It is an Old Testament (Jewish) Law and to my knowledge it has never been adopted as any Judeo-Christian law.

It is one of those Jewish Laws such as men not being allowed to trim their beards that we have never adopted. To be honest, as someone who literally hates to shave and has a very thick beard, I wouldn't mind adopting the no beard trimming law.

Immie

Well yes, but I have never really understood the selective memory when it comes to the OT. Exodus 20 sure gets a lot of press to be OT, right? Can I assume that you're on the side of taking those down from the court house on the same grounds?

 

[uscitizen]

China will likely buy Yellowstone.

The Smokey mountains will provide lots of lumber.

etc.

 

[Sweet Willy]

11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread.
12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Maybe a NT reference will help you recall the Christian idea of debt forgiveness?

 

[Sweet Willy]

40And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

41There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

42And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

43Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

44And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

45Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

47Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

48And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

 

[Misty]

Gutting America's natural treasures..

Nice!

Hey dumb liberal this is what you sow when you spend more money than you have, and this is just the beginning. You idiots are running out of ways to tax people and soon there won't be any money to pay for any of the government's bullshit waste.

Oh whine save the trees. Lolol. What a joke.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Hello? Immie? Are you a Christian or a republican first? I am here as your brother in Christ. Can you find it in your heart to acknowledge the Christian value of forgiveness? The judgement of these men can not hurt you.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Gutting America's natural treasures..

Nice!

Hey dumb liberal this is what you sow when you spend more money than you have, and this is just the beginning. You idiots are running out of ways to tax people and soon there won't be any money to pay for any of the government's bullshit waste.

Oh whine save the trees. Lolol. What a joke.

Misty, perhaps you only skimmed over the topic here so I'd point out that rather than "save the trees" much of our public land is managed as timber forest for profit. We have long harvested trees as a source of public funding. The issue of public lands, at least vast swaths of pine forest in the south, is not about "saving trees". Quite the opposite, it is about harvesting timber for lumber.

 

[The T]

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

Stearns wants to sell off public lands

Crazy Idea!

Or is it? Some where some how the bills need to be paid. Eliminating the tax cuts even for the middle class leaves us with trillion dollar deficits with another entitlement set to kick in.

God help us all.

So, national parks cost money, or make money? If he just wants to get rid of them, I'd buy 'em for a dollar a piece. Lots of money that could be made, I'm sure.

WHY does the government charge to be on LAND that belongs to the people?