Cliven Bundy: deadbeat rancher or media hero?

[Wilber]

Then the law needs to be changed. Nevada needs to assert it's authority over the land within it's borders.

Nevada should control the land in Nevada, not Washington DC.

If Bundy wanted to purchase the land from the BLM, would that be acceptable? Would they sell it to Bundy for grazing purposes or would they sell the land to fracking companies? Which makes more money? Because that is what it really comes down to.

If Nevada did own the land and was leveling charges for its use, do you really think that would have made any difference to Bundy? He conveniently forgets the Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's bit.

[jbg]

Then the law needs to be changed. Nevada needs to assert it's authority over the land within it's borders.

That's not the way it works in this country. In this country, in the Eastern states and the Pacific Coast states, much of hte real estate was under private control at the time of statehood. In much of "flyover" country the Feds owned most of the land. The states elected statehood with their eyes open as far as land ownership.

[Argus]

If Nevada did own the land and was leveling charges for its use, do you really think that would have made any difference to Bundy? He conveniently forgets the Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's bit.

It would make a lot of difference to the gun nuts who rush to challenge anything Washington does -- especially since it started getting run by that Kenyan Muslim Communist guy...

[kimmy]

And no BLM does not own the land I would think, the BLM oversees federally controlled land. And if it is public land, then I fail to see the reason of charging a fee to access land that taxpayers pay into already.

Taxpayers don't "pay into" public lands. Taxpayers receive revenue from public lands. Revenue from public lands helps pay for healthcare and schools and take care of old-people and poor-people. Public land is a resource, and if some business operator wants to exploit that resource for his own profit, he has to reimburse the public for profiting from our land.

That principle holds whether it is an oil company paying royalties, or a timber company paying for the trees they cut down, or ranchers paying grazing fees.

Why should Cliven Bundy get to graze for free? Why should he have a leg up on ranchers who own or rent the land they graze on?

Strange that the BLM has their own swat teams to deal with people like Bundy, yet turned tail and ran when they were met a larger group from the opposition. They caved in. BLM was outnumbered and outsmarted in a sense.

I'm not sure that putting out a call for armed mooks to come to your aid qualifies as "outsmarted", exactly.

And if you think that the federal authorities are scared of the morons we saw in the videos, you're crazy. The federal authorities are scared of creating another Waco incident where they end looking bad for massacring a bunch of idiots. Your buddies should be very grateful that the authorities have learned from Waco.

Now I do have a friend that actually went to the standoff and I am waiting to hear back from her after this weekend as she was heading to the Bundy ranch area again. The only thing that she kept stressing is that some of the oathkeeper leadership is corrupt and kept calling it a psy-op within a psy-op. I'll ask if I can record the conversation next time. I came away with more questions from the conversation.

But from what I gathered, stupid things were done on both sides. And if the Oathkeeper leadership is corrupt in some fashion (like the guy claiming to put women and children up front) are more dangerous to the situation than the BLM agents. No one was biting or itching for conflict with weapons.

The guy in that video wasn't an Oathkeeper.

Here's the "sit-rep", men: the Oathkeepers received "intel" (probably a 14 year old on Twitter or something) about an incoming Obama Drone Strike and decided to "evac" the "battlefield" "ASAP". The remaining faction of the militia suspect the Oathkeepers were complicit in a government plot to undermine the entire "op".

These Super-Patriots will explain it for you in their own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPM5znJruKg&feature=youtu.be

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Taxpayers don't "pay into" public lands. Taxpayers receive revenue from public lands. Revenue from public lands helps pay for healthcare and schools and take care of old-people and poor-people. Public land is a resource, and if some business operator wants to exploit that resource for his own profit, he has to reimburse the public for profiting from our land.

Sorta....taxpayers pay to use federal lands in the way of fees and taxes at national, state, and county parks/campgrounds, monuments, etc. Revenue from public lands is also used to pay for bombs, bullets, and F-35 Strike Fighters.

[GostHacked]

That principle holds whether it is an oil company paying royalties, or a timber company paying for the trees they cut down, or ranchers paying grazing fees.

Each cost inured on a farmer/rancher translates into higher prices or lower quality of food.

And I would not trust what the current leadership of the Oathkeepers put out. They are really doing themselves a lot of damage by acting and talking the way they do. Not all of them are like this, but I would suspect some infiltration of the Oathkeepers by the feds. Not that crazy of a scenario. Talk crap, make them look bad, and marginalize them.

[Wilber]

It would make a lot of difference to the gun nuts who rush to challenge anything Washington does -- especially since it started getting run by that Kenyan Muslim Communist guy...

I think they just want something for nothing and would object having to pay anyone for the use of public land. Public lands should benefit the public at large, not individuals. What Bundy wants is akin to setting up a private business in a public building and refusing to pay rent.

[Michael Hardner]

How much money do these ranchers have exactly ? They seem to be quite well off to be milking off government welfare - does anybody know ?

The next thing we'll here is that they need a TFW program, or have welfare-subsidized employees to remain "economically viable". And the sad sack disaffected set will drag their poor selves to the front line because... well... they're easily manipulated I guess.

[kimmy]

Each cost inured on a farmer/rancher translates into higher prices or lower quality of food.

When Bundy's cattle hit the auction block, do you think the buyers pay less because Bundy's costs were lower? The price for cattle is the price for cattle. Lower costs for Bundy translates to more money in Bundy's pocket, not lower prices for food.

And once again, why should Bundy get to graze for free when other ranchers pay to graze their herds? Maybe other ranchers who graze on public land shouldn't have to pay either? And then maybe ranchers who own their own land should receive a subsidy equal to the money their freeloader counterparts will be saving?

Maybe if we don't charge oil companies royalties, we can get cheap gas?

What's next, allowing fast food restaurants to import foreigners so we can get cheaper hamburgers?

And I would not trust what the current leadership of the Oathkeepers put out. They are really doing themselves a lot of damage by acting and talking the way they do. Not all of them are like this, but I would suspect some infiltration of the Oathkeepers by the feds. Not that crazy of a scenario. Talk crap, make them look bad, and marginalize them.

To be clear, the play-pretend commandos in the video I posted aren't Oathkeepers, nor was the guy in the video who talked about putting the women in front. I think the video puts the mentality of these people in perspective... particularly the persistent talk about "the battlefield" and shooting "deserters" in the back.

"Protesters". ha.

-k

[cybercoma]

I know nothing about this situation, but every time I scroll by the thread I keep thinking it says Cloven Bundy. Accordingly, I picture Al Bundy as a faun. Just thought I would share.

Edited May 6, 2014 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

How much money do these ranchers have exactly ? They seem to be quite well off to be milking off government welfare - does anybody know ?

The next thing we'll here is that they need a TFW program, or have welfare-subsidized employees to remain "economically viable". And the sad sack disaffected set will drag their poor selves to the front line because... well... they're easily manipulated I guess.

A lot of other agricultural sectors are subsidized.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/farmers-boost-revenue-sowing-subsidies-for-crop-insurance.html

A Depression-era program intended to save American farmers from ruin has grown into a 21st-century crutch enabling affluent growers and financial institutions to thrive at taxpayer expense.

Federal crop insurance encourages farmers to gamble on risky plantings in a program that has been marred by fraud and that illustrates why government spending is so difficult to control.

And the cost is increasing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture last year spent about $14 billion insuring farmers against the loss of crop or income, almost seven times more than in fiscal 2000, according to the Congressional Research Service.

[GostHacked]

More on taxes and rich farmers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/billionaires-received-us-farm-subsidies-report-finds.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The federal government paid $11.3 million in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies from 1995 to 2012 to 50 billionaires or businesses in which they have some form of ownership, according to a report released Thursday by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research organization.

The billionaires who received the subsidies or owned companies that did include the Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen; the investment titan Charles Schwab; and S. Truett Cathy, owner of Chick-fil-A. The billionaires who got the subsidies have a collective net worth of $316 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

The Working Group said its findings were likely to underestimate the total farm subsidies that went to the billionaires on the Forbes 400 list because many of them also received crop insurance subsidies. Federal law prohibits the disclosure of the names of individuals who get crop insurance subsidies, the group said.

The report is being issued as members of the House and Senate are meeting to come up with a new five-year farm bill. The authors of the report said it is timely, given that lawmakers are debating a House proposal that would cut nearly $40 billion over 10 years from the food stamp program, which helps provide food for nearly 47 million people. A Senate provision would cut $4.5 billion over the same period.

So a large cut in the food stamp program for the poor, while these rich farmers are encouraged to game the system with explicit assistance from the federal government.

Rich people do not need subsidies, but they get it, while we see complaints that Bundy owes some money for grazing fees.

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of other agricultural sectors are subsidized.

Right. I see that as corruption, which is to say that giving the same subsidy to Bundy isn't the answer.

[GostHacked]

Right. I see that as corruption, which is to say that giving the same subsidy to Bundy isn't the answer.

So why would Bundy get the hammer while others get the money? The corruption means the program needs to be changed. But will it? And that could be part of the frustration with Bundy. Why did he not get any subsidies? Not rich enough perhaps?

[Michael Hardner]

So why would Bundy get the hammer while others get the money?

They have been getting the money through usual means, for years.

You catch more flies with honey, than with vinnegar, or with racist rants and shotgun-toting miscreants on FOX New's Hannity show.

The corruption means the program needs to be changed. But will it? And that could be part of the frustration with Bundy. Why did he not get any subsidies? Not rich enough perhaps?

What I'm wondering is how somebody with that much money is just figuring all of this out now. Maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was... which was low-smart by the way.

[GostHacked]

They have been getting the money through usual means, for years.

You catch more flies with honey, than with vinnegar, or with racist rants and shotgun-toting miscreants on FOX New's Hannity show.

What I'm wondering is how somebody with that much money is just figuring all of this out now. Maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was... which was low-smart by the way.

Bundy started that process 20 years ago by refusing to pay the fees. Maybe he is smarter than you think.