Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush are the only Presidents who have not
created National Monuments.
Of course.
The bolded should surprise no one. What have Republicans (at least since Nixon, who at least had some meaningful legislation that benefited Americans) ever given back to the American people who were not wealthy?
Green energo companies didn't exist when the fedeal government was selling off land in their newly acquired territories.
I just find it interesting that there is these claims that the government is taking all this land and yet there is no proof that shows this. Your road link is nothing more than a technicality and nothing more. I thought you guys said the government was taking actual land, not just a little road to sell to a private developer.
I'm not the one who made the claim I'm just questioning why so many dont have a problem with the government owning so much land.
The bolded should surprise no one. What have Republicans (at least since Nixon, who at least had some meaningful legislation that benefited Americans) ever given back to the American people who were not wealthy?
Squadoosh, that's what.
?
I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion from the bold...
I'm not the one who made the claim I'm just questioning why so many dont have a problem with the government owning so much land.
isnt this lost tax revenues important to you?
You might not be the one who made the original claim, but you seem to be the one running with it as you keep talking about this little road.
I personally don't care if the federal government owns so much land or not. If states really want to buy the land the federal government owns, then they can write the feds a check for that land and do the same thing people before them did when buying federal land.
government owns 95.8% of Alaska, a statistic I find just utterly astounding
87.8% of Nevada
etc
Yeah, I know. I also know that initially in the Nevada Authorizing Act, Nevada had more land and the Feds less. But then Nevada went to the Feds and asked if the Feds would take more of the land - Nevada didn't want to be responsible for it.
But you - AGAIN - completely skirted answering my question. So, I'll ask again:
What land is currently being taken by the federal government??? You keep claiming that this is happening, but then you won't back it up.
I'm not the one who made the claim I'm just questioning why so many dont have a problem with the government owning so much land.
isnt this lost tax revenues important to you?
It's not "lost tax revenues" just as not having a talking-while-walking tax is not lost tax revenues. Under your logic New York would have no Central Park as it should be privatized, developed, and taxed.
As President, I’ve now preserved more than 3 million acres of public lands for future generations. (Applause.) And I’m not finished. (Applause.)
As I said in my State of the Union, we are looking at additional opportunities to preserve federal lands and waters, and I’ll continue to do so, especially where communities are speaking up. And that’s what makes this particular designation so important. We heard from the community that for a lot of urban families this is their only big, outdoor space. And too many children in L.A. County, especially children of color, don’t have access to parks where they can run free and breathe fresh air, experience nature, and learn about their own environment.
He's absolutely right. They are a much-loved part of So Cal. Beautiful to look at, beautiful to be in. Lots of L.A. kids get their first experience playing in snow up in the San Gabriels.
I'm not the one who made the claim I'm just questioning why so many dont have a problem with the government owning so much land.
isnt this lost tax revenues important to you?
I actually find myself agreeing with urbanlife78 on this particular issue. The Antiquities Act of 1906 came into being precisely because Teddy Roosevelt was personal and honestly concerned about the damage private interests were doing to the beauty of this county.
Here in California we did something similar in the 20's, setting aside some our land as protected state beaches and state parks.
I see nothing wrong with Government providing The People with public parks.
Otherwise, the private interests would lock them up and charge us all to visit these spaces. Or should I say the places they were not strip mining and clear cutting and overbuilding with high rises, blocking the view of everyone else, and closing off those area from public access to "add value" for their rich clientele. You know that.
Sorry, but in America ALL of us have interests in all of our special resources, and according to the Constitution, it is the job of Government to promote the general welfare. That means promoting public spaces that all of us can enjoy.
Last edited by chuckmann; 10-25-2014 at 04:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
