Trump orders review of national monuments to allow development

[OpportunityCost]

No, I'm cutting through all the right wing spin with some truth.

What spin and what truth? You don't know the motivations, you have no proof. You are engaging in conjecture because you are entirely prepared to believe the worst with no evidence whatsoever.

You are the one engaging in spin.

 

[Winston]

What spin and what truth? You don't know the motivations, you have no proof. You are engaging in conjecture because you are entirely prepared to believe the worst with no evidence whatsoever.

You are the one engaging in spin.

Nah, the states rights thing is a lie. It was already federal land. Conservatives dog piled on an issue looking to exploit a government action to appear the victims. But they're just a bunch of lying crybabies who need to shut the **** up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OpportunityCost]

Nah, the states rights thing is a lie. It was already federal land. Conservatives dog piled on an issue looking to exploit a government action to appear the victims. But they're just a bunch of lying crybabies who need to shut the **** up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems totally convincing. You and liberals in general should keep going with that pile of bull**** for an argument. Ought to win some serious elections with that attitude.

 

[Winston]

That seems totally convincing. You and liberals in general should keep going with that pile of bull**** for an argument. Ought to win some serious elections with that attitude.

If I ran for office my campaign slogan would be "Don't Vote For Republicans".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OpportunityCost]

If I ran for office my campaign slogan would be "Don't Vote For Republicans".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How erudite and clever. Maybe you should stand for something instead of being against a group of people.

 

[apdst]

Still not even remotely 'communism'.

The communists are the ones that came up with it.

2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

No wonder you people got suckered in.

 

[Winston]

How erudite and clever. Maybe you should stand for something instead of being against a group of people.

You have a great point there and that is in part why HRCs campaign was such a failure.

If you want to discuss the OP any more, I mean, we have to accept first of all that Obama was within his power to designate Bears Ears a monument. And the ball will be in Zinkes court to rescind the status. We'll see how much the locality really cares about the preservation of heritage or profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The communists are the ones that came up with it.

No wonder you people got suckered in.

Yawn. Utterly irrelevant and still not even remotely communist. The US has had progressive taxation in one form or another since 1862 and we're not communist.

Please try harder.

 

[apdst]

Yawn. Utterly irrelevant and still not even remotely communist. The US has had progressive taxation in one form or another since 1862 and we're not communist.

Please try harder.

It isn't remotely communist, but it came straight out of The Communist Manifesto. :lamo

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It isn't remotely communist, but it came straight out of The Communist Manifesto. :lamo

And yet the US has had progressive taxation for over 150 years and it's not a communist country, nor is it turning into one.

You're really not very good at this.

 

[Beaudreaux]

More appropriately would be US citizens own 28% of the land. Federal land belongs to all citizens of the US. The feds are the caretakers.

I used to think that, too. I eventually saw how naïve I was to think that the federal government cared about me or any other citizen. The government only cares about increasing their power, their control, and their ability to own our every asset either through taxation, seizure, or as the chart I posted shows... 28% of the land in this country and still growing.

 

[minnie616]

Sorry the Antiquities law does not cover land grabbing 1,351,849 acres. It's going back to the state of Utah

It never belonged to state of Utah.

It belonged to the Navaho Indians until the Federal government procured it from the Navajos.

 

[minnie616]

So, yes, it's going to go back to the states. That's all you had to say.

The land was Federal land and never belonged to the states, therefore it cannot go back to the states.

 

[minnie616]

You don't have an issue with the federal government owning the majority of state in the west and the east coast and such are almost untouched? The federal government needs to get out of the land-grab business and stay in it's lane.

As explained the land in the East was mostly settled , much of the land in the west was never settled due to its terrain and it remained Federal land.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Most of the land is federal land is in the west because the Federal government procured it from the American Indians and when the Government opened the land to settlers most of that land was uninhabitable.

Imagine trying to settle on land in the dessert and trying to survive there or in the bottom of the Grand Canyon back in the 1800s .

(PRE-POST NOTE: After reading this post prior to hitting the button, I wanted to add this to say that I don't mean this snarky or as disrespectful as it could sound, it's just that the word you used (imagine) was a very good descriptor for me to use as well)

Imagine that it's not the 1800's any more. Imagine that a company may want to put a solar farm on some of that land, or any other number of uses that land could have if it were privately owned. Also, imagine the revenue to the government in sales profits and long term property taxes, income taxes from business conducted on that land, and other revenue streams to the government by privatization of the ownership of much of that land.

Now, I'm not talking about the Grand Canyon, or Monument Valley, or Yosemite National Park, or so on. There are, however, millions of acres of land that would not be risking damaging a national natural treasure by privatizing the ownership.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

FYI

And you think this is a bad thing? The biggest differentiation between us and Europe is the fact that we managed to preserve some of our wilderness. There is nothing more American than conservation. We practically invented it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You have a great point there and that is in part why HRCs campaign was such a failure.

If you want to discuss the OP any more, I mean, we have to accept first of all that Obama was within his power to designate Bears Ears a monument. And the ball will be in Zinkes court to rescind the status. We'll see how much the locality really cares about the preservation of heritage or profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see it that way. The question of whether he was within his power to do so ignores the underlying question of whether it was moral and just to do so. Since consideration was already underway in Congress maybe he was just executing a land grab to satisfy parts of his base. As for the locals, I think they have had enough of federal involvement in their land use.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The land was Federal land and never belonged to the states, therefore it cannot go back to the states.

That's not exactly accurate. Much of it was territorial lands that were not actually owned by anyone, but yet was under the control of the territorial government which became the state government once the territory was made a state within the union. Some, as you've said in other posts, was either purchased or seized from Native American tribes, but those tribes didn't actually own the land nor did most of them even think that they owned the land. The land was just there. It was part of the world. Parts were their hunting grounds, some were their winter grounds, some were their summer grounds, and some were their sacred burial grounds. But the tribes didn't "own" the land.

Of all the posters here (if I'm remembering about you correctly), you obviously should know this better than anyone else.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

As much as I love national parks, this is too much power to put in the hands of a President. If land is going to be taken from the states, at the very least it should be approved by Congress on a case by case basis.

You seem to have a misunderstanding as to how we get National Parks and Monuments. The Antiquities Act does not allow the President or Congress to take land from a state. It merely allows for the president or congress to change the designation of public lands already managed by the federal government. Indeed, the lands were usually federal public lands long before the state existed.

 

[minnie616]

(PRE-POST NOTE: After reading this post prior to hitting the button, I wanted to add this to say that I don't mean this snarky or as disrespectful as it could sound, it's just that the word you used (imagine) was a very good descriptor for me to use as well)

Imagine that it's not the 1800's any more. Imagine that a company may want to put a solar farm on some of that land, or any other number of uses that land could have if it were privately owned. Also, imagine the revenue to the government in sales profits and long term property taxes, income taxes from business conducted on that land, and other revenue streams to the government by privatization of the ownership of much of that land.

Now, I'm not talking about the Grand Canyon, or Monument Valley, or Yosemite National Park, or so on. There are, however, millions of acres of land that would not be risking damaging a national natural treasure by privatizing the ownership.

As I posted in post number 20 of this thread:



State and private lands within the national monument are excluded from the designation.
The Forest Service factsheet explains it best:

The national monument designation will not impact the rights of private landowners within or adjacent to the national monument, including existing access within the national monument boundary. In addition to the approximately 1.35 million acres of Federal lands, the Bears Ears National Monument boundary encompasses approximately 109,100 acres of land owned by the State of Utah and 12,600 acres owned by private landowners. The non-Federal lands within the national monument are not be part of the national monument unless subsequently and voluntarily acquired.

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/...fact-sheet.pdf

All the land within the boundaries that is owned by the state or is private land may be used for revenue if they so choose.

Also there is still a lot of Federal Land that is not designated as a monument.

Congress reviewed the Antiquities Act as recent as 1976 ( not 1800) and they agreed with the Supreme Court that it is Constitutional.

 

[Beaudreaux]

And you think this is a bad thing? The biggest differentiation between us and Europe is the fact that we managed to preserve some of our wilderness. There is nothing more American than conservation. We practically invented it.

Did I say it was a bad thing? Would you like to ask me what I think or keep making that decision for me?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Did I say it was a bad thing? Would you like to ask me what I think or keep making that decision for me?

Given the context of the thread, I took it that you believe it is a bad thing we have such vast public lands. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

 

[Beaudreaux]

As I posted in post number 20 of this thread:

State and private lands within the national monument are excluded from the designation.
The Forest Service factsheet explains it best:

The national monument designation will not impact the rights of private landowners within or adjacent to the national monument, including existing access within the national monument boundary. In addition to the approximately 1.35 million acres of Federal lands, the Bears Ears National Monument boundary encompasses approximately 109,100 acres of land owned by the State of Utah and 12,600 acres owned by private landowners. The non-Federal lands within the national monument are not be part of the national monument unless subsequently and voluntarily acquired.

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/...fact-sheet.pdf

All the land within the boundaries that is owned by the state or is private land may be used for revenue if they so choose.

Okay? That changes what I said, how exactly?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't see it that way. The question of whether he was within his power to do so ignores the underlying question of whether it was moral and just to do so. Since consideration was already underway in Congress maybe he was just executing a land grab to satisfy parts of his base. As for the locals, I think they have had enough of federal involvement in their land use.

This referring to it as a "land grab" is the height of intellectual dishonesty. When the president designates a National Monument, the land is not taken from the states as the land was federal land to begin with. For example, if I own a hay field and decide that I want to restore as a prairie, I have not committed a land grab because I owned the land in the first place. No one's state or private land was taken in the designation of a National Monument. All a National Monument designation does is change the status of the federal land within it. Moreover, all such designations are subject to extensive periods of public comment before they are made.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Given the context of the thread, I took it that you believe it is a bad thing we have such vast public lands. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

Not a problem. I think there's a balance to be found. I don't think that we as a people need to own lands that are not natural treasures or would negatively impact our country or lives if owned privately.

I agree overwhelmingly that areas such as the Grand Canyon, and other natural wonders should be protected from harm and owned by the people for protection in perpetuity. I also think that other areas where certain species live and live nowhere else, should be protected as well - but within reason. I'm not against public ownership of lands that should be protected for any number of reasons to ensure that they will be here in their current natural state for generations to come.

However, the government owns lands that do not fall within that category. That should be addressed.

However, the way Trump is doing this is of major concern for me.

I hope that lays out my opinion in at least a basic format.