Trump - Who should own America? The Feds or the States
From a Field and Stream Interview last week (Jan 22, 2016):
Interviewer: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?
Donald Trump: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that.
Interviewer: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?
Donald Trump: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I like a friendly debate let's see where this leads.
By the way do you know what -- signifies in grammar --?
The classic case in this is (of course) rent vs buy. My father has owned a rental property since the 80's when (under Reagan's tax reforms) a rental property was a good investment. (Not so now but that's another matter.) I can't tell you the number of times I've been out there to help him fix that place up because renters trashed the place. Why? No ownership. No personal investment.
Public land faces the same problems. There are many groups who use the land responsibly - like part-owners. There are unfortunately many who do not, however. In the case of federally-managed lands, the managers even go so far as to think that they should control public access to these lands rather than simply managing the land. That is what has happened in the Malheur example: the managers have used their control to expand their control all for the sake of control. They face no negative repercussions for these actions - or haven't until now. A private land owner would have serious negative repercussions for the actions taken to this point.
Yet the feckless public will vote them or someone like them back into office with 95% of the votes cast. just like before.
One because of dumbed down stupidity and the other because they don't know history worth a tinkers damn and have too much faith in urban myths.
The system set forth by the Constitution for the States to ban slavery started with Pennsylvania if I'm not mistaken and most of that was done prior to 1800. Delaware and Maryland were the last. After the Civil War Mississippi was the last finally making it illegal in 2003 give or take a year.
All the should could woulds are nice ideas but what organization has been put together to effect those changes? Answer ....None that aren't just fronts for a 700 Club style rip off of dollars.
It's a couch potato nation where talk is considered the same as doing but in the end like all hot air it rises and disappears over some rainbow.
The purpose and "challenge" of government is to protect our rights, not to compromise with statists to "live together" under pressure group warfare, let alone eco-fascists.
"Extreme individualism" is individualism as opposed to collectivism. It is not "bordering on anarchy". See Ayn Rand's essays "Extremism, Or The Art of Smearing" and "The Anatomy of Compromise" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Notice also his leftist viro anti-industry, anti-profit attack on Silicon Valley because he doesn't like that it's developed.
This is a sweeping misrepresentation. The state of Maine did not "give" anyone "exclusive rights" with a "license", the land in question is not "over 75% of the state" nor is it "inaccessible to the public without permission", and neither does "most state revenue come from this land".
Approximately 2/3 of Maine is sparsely settled and mostly used for timber. It is private property, like any agriculture land, not "licensed" and not "given away". It was previously unowned. The plantations and townships mostly have such small resident populations (if any in the plantations) that they have no organized town government, though there are some organized towns within the region and everything is in some county. There are public roads and state highways for access just like everywhere else, although it is very rural even where there is a population, and there are many private roads through the woods, including logging roads in the timberland.
The contiguous region with no town governments are called the Unorganized Territory. The property taxes in the UT are collected by the state, are paid by the property owners there -- including residents, businesses, and the large timber companies -- and are used for state and county expenses within the UT, mostly for education. They do not fund the rest of the state, let alone "most state revenue". (Elsewhere in Maine property taxes are paid directly to the town governments, with a portion diverted to the relevant counties, which are comparatively weak in Maine, especially outside the UT). State income taxes are paid to the state everywhere in Maine. The wood products industry is about $8 billion and is not the largest segment of the economy.
There is a tradition of public access in most of the woods, especially on the large private timber company land, for hiking, hunting, fishing and snowmobiling at no charge. North Maine Woods is a private organization sponsored by major landowners that provides campgrounds, and some other maintained areas, for a nominal fee -- essentially a private park. This all coexists with the private logging operations.
Baxter State Park is a large area around Mount Katahdin, which was privately purchased and established ed in the 1930s by a former governor of Maine specifically to stop a threat of a National Park Service takeover.
This system of mostly private property should be praised, not smeared as "Corporate exploitation of the land can be cruel and unforgiving in pursuit of profit" along with other factual misrepresentations.
It is also under constant threat by the national viro preservationist pressure group lobby which has been pushing for the last 30 years for a Federal takeover intended to reduce Maine to the submissive status of western states and to destroy the natural resources industry. A particularly active drive for a 3.2 million acre National Park intends to "restore" a region larger then Yellowstone to primitive pre-settlement conditions and eventually take over Baxter State Park, which they still resent losing Federal control to.
That lobby currently threatens a Federal takeover of a portion to establish a National Park Service foothold through a National Monument decree by Obama because they have been unable to establish public support and Congressional approval. Just the sort of "deal" the Trump mentality goes for with his nationalist mentality of Federal control for "stewardship of this magnificent land" with "eminent domain is wonderful".
Nothing new it' s been around ever since the Patriot Act went into effect.
Did know that Constitutional Rights are suspended anywhere within 100 miles of the borders or sea coasts? Why not it' s no big secret.
Load more comments...