meanwhile China and russia are raping the earth to get a leg up on us

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953002)

1.5 would do next to nothing for the deficit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953006)

Now that Im 100 years old, I have realized my error. What faggot Boeing Factory were we trying to build? I much prefer the little birds.

Rush was wrong. "Conservatives" were wrong. I was wrong. SAVE | EVERY | BIRD

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953062)

"Well, we beat the chinks."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953074)

Does no one know THE ACTUAL ANSWER?

Con senators in the west like federal ownership of land because their “rancher” constituents lease land for cheap and don’t pay property tax on it. Same with oil and forest etc. also prevents shitlib state governments from regulating it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953100)

The federal land management agencies calculate the fee based on an arcane formula that favors the federal grazing permittee at the expense of the federal taxpayer. The formula was in the Public Rangelands Improvement (sic) Act of 1978 (PRIA). That statute expired in 1985, but on Valentines Day in 1986 President Reagan issued an executive order that made the formula live on. The PRIA formula considers current private land grazing lease rates (though obviously not that much, as we shall see), beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production, all indexes compiled by the USDA. Because these indexes as used in the grazing fee formula could result in the grazing fee approaching $0/AUM, a floor of $1.35/AUM was included to prevent such an acute embarrassment.

https://advocateswest.org/high-cost-of-cheap-grazing/

If you sold land to farmer they have to actually maintain it and pay tax on it vs sweet deal they get now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953124)

Retard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953198)

but yes corporations are typically the ones to extract value from otherwise worthless land

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953356)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

I've never once in my 30 years of living in the lowcountry every heard someone complain about the fed. gov. owning the Francis Marion forest

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953231)

The land should stay publicly owned, as much of it as possible. Once it goes private we can never get it back. There isn't even any reason for it to go private. I get the impression that a lot of regular Joe advocates for the privatization of public lands are east coasters who have never been out west and experienced how great it is to be able to have access to these vast areas of undeveloped free territory

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953316)

OP I don't know if you're just looking for an argument with this thread, or what. But you are way off base here. This is not even an 80/20 issue. What you are advocating is a categorically terrible idea

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953363)

I’m not convinced at all by the “omg it’s precious wilderness” arguments ITT

we have entered a very tumultuous time for global security and the Pearl clutching is very naive. we need access to all the minerals and metals that our country is blessed with. the same resources that drove the allied victory in WWII

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953808)

I know you’re bucktoothed peasant wife doesn’t

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5728727&forum_id=2E#48953812)