Cliven Bundy is a welfare rancher and is not a friend of Liberty

[pcosmar]

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

Quoting yet another Government site.

The BLM is illegitimate. What they say or think is irrelevant.

 

[jclay2]

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

The "ability to pay" sounds like a subsidy to me.

What is the state providing that warrants this fee? Look at the pictures, it is a freaking desert. Bundy is improving and maintaining the land, why should this incur a liability on his part to the fed's?

 

[klamath]

Because Bundy's attorneys have cited prior court cases to show that he has some legal claim to the land. If he's going to bring those claims, it's proper to show the error in his reasoning, even if you may not agree with the underlying premise that the courts are the proper venue to settle this matter.

Have you actually read these court cases? Bundy never claims, like some here, that the government should not own the land. Rather he claims that the State of Nevada owns the land, and that he should continue to receive subsidized access from the State to this grazing land.

Put yourself in the place of a land owner in Nevada who wants to lease out their land to cattle ranchers for grazing. How are these land owners expected to compete in the market place with a government that sets ridiculously low grazing fees? Because that's the situation that Bundy wants continued. He is an anti-free market, pro-government, pro-welfare for Bundy, goon.

What you fail to mention is there is no private land to be offered up for grazing in Nevada. What little there is can easily compete because they improved the fodder for the cattle
Have you ever raised cattle of run a business in the basic industries that make the entire worlds civilization possible, Mining , logging and agriculture? If not I suggest you do, and report back on the wealth you made ripping the taxpayers off.

 

[klamath]

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

The "ability to pay" sounds like a subsidy to me.

If it is such a great subsidy based on the ability to pay why did 57 other ranches go broke after the feds changed the grazing rules?

 

[Origanalist]

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

The "ability to pay" sounds like a subsidy to me.

It seems that any money not paid to government sounds like a subsidy to you.

 

[Deborah K]

If it is such a great subsidy based on the ability to pay why did 57 other ranches go broke after the feds changed the grazing rules?

Because of this:

Why The Other Ranchers Support Cliven Bundy


Statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner, Nevada rancher

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years.

The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following:

“You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.

The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to.

Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years.

As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%.

In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada.

Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM.

Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us.

He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land.

Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand.

Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against.

Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

http://deadlinelive.info/2014/04/22/why-the-other-ranchers-support-cliven-bundy/

 

[tod evans]

That's not fitting the agenda some are pushing Deb.....

 

[Dr.3D]

It seems that any money not paid to government sounds like a subsidy to you.

Any money paid to government is a subsidy that provides funds for entities like the BLM.

 

[oldietech]

Because Bundy's attorneys have cited prior court cases to show that he has some legal claim to the land. If he's going to bring those claims, it's proper to show the error in his reasoning, even if you may not agree with the underlying premise that the courts are the proper venue to settle this matter.

Have you actually read these court cases? Bundy never claims, like some here, that the government should not own the land. Rather he claims that the State of Nevada owns the land, and that he should continue to receive subsidized access from the State to this grazing land.

Put yourself in the place of a land owner in Nevada who wants to lease out their land to cattle ranchers for grazing. How are these land owners expected to compete in the market place with a government that sets ridiculously low grazing fees? Because that's the situation that Bundy wants continued. He is an anti-free market, pro-government, pro-welfare for Bundy, goon.

So I want to sell you 1,000 acres of land for the low rate of $1 per acre. You just have to agree to do whatever I tell you to do with that land, when I tell you to do it, how I tell you to do it.

Come on why not? it's cheap.

I understand you are arguing against the ranchers using "public" land in the first place. The land should be privatized. What Bundy is doing is putting an end to the subsidy and forcing the "public" at large to start understanding this issue.

So what he's not paying the Federal Government their pound of flesh? The Federal Gov't shouldn't even be involved in the first place. The only right the Federal Government has is what the people of this country say they have.

It's time for people in Nevada and the rest of the country to tell the Federal Government they have no right to the land. NOT the other way around.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

The "ability to pay" sounds like a subsidy to me.

Sounds like an extortionist taking pity on their victims, to me.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you believe that the government is obligated to keep his business profitable, then why not require the government to keep Wall Street banks profitable by giving them low-interest loans or bail-out money at taxpayer expense?

He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he bought. He did not, and wants to continue to mooch from the government dole.

Austin, do you realize how much of the west that the federal government has taken over? You write as if you believe there are all kinds of private lands available.

Furthermore, why do you cite case law to substantiate your argument? You should know as well as I that one of the problems we have in our legal system is the use of case law to substantiate decisions in present cases, while rarely asking whether that precedent is aligned with the law of the land; the Constitution.

 

[CPUd]

Austin, do you realize how much of the west that the federal government has taken over? You write as if you believe there are all kinds of private lands available.

Furthermore, why do you cite case law to substantiate your argument? You should know as well as I that one of the problems we have in our legal system is the use of case law to substantiate decisions in present cases, while rarely asking whether that precedent is aligned with the law of the land; the Constitution.

It's not necessarily 'taken over', a lot of that land, people just don't want to live there.

 

[Dr.3D]

It's not necessarily 'taken over', a lot of that land, people just don't want to live there.

Then why not sell it to the ranchers so they can put it to good use?

 

[erowe1]

Because that is how it is done in federal land law. It is called case law. In briefs filed to federal courts Statute law is very rarely even mentioned. It is very far removed from any representative government. It is case law based on case law based on case law and the intent of congress in statute law has long been lost. He is using a very sweet setup the agencies and the environmentalists have worked out to accomplish their goals.

I don't see how that relates to the OP. He seemed to be saying that Bundy was in the wrong. How would either statute law or case law show that, unless we just deferred to those things as thought they're automatically legitimate?

 

[pcosmar]

Then why not sell it to the ranchers so they can put it to good use?

Because even though they have "taken it over".. They do not own it.
The map says Federally OWNED land.. And that Can Not Be.

The Federal Government is not allowed (Not Authorized) to own that land..

Period.

The Constitution describes exactly what the Fed is Allowed to own. and that ain't it.

 

[erowe1]

It's not necessarily 'taken over', a lot of that land, people just don't want to live there.

Let's say that's true.

How do you get from that to the federal government being in charge of the land?

Also, whether people want to live there or not, do they perhaps want to do anything else there? Such as graze their cattle?

 

[erowe1]

Because Bundy's attorneys have cited prior court cases to show that he has some legal claim to the land. If he's going to bring those claims, it's proper to show the error in his reasoning, even if you may not agree with the underlying premise that the courts are the proper venue to settle this matter.

Why?

Is your point that he's in the wrong? Or just that, practically speaking, you don't expect his arguments to hold up in court?

I can't blame his attorneys for making the best case they can, given that the law is what it is. But that doesn't obligate either me or them or Bundy to agree with the law.

There may not be a single tax resistance argument that is likely to hold up in court. But tax resisters are still always right. And when they do go to court, I can't blame them for doing the best they can in that arena with its rules being what they are.

 

[Dr.3D]

Because even though they have "taken it over".. They do not own it.
The map says Federally OWNED land.. And that Can Not Be.

The Federal Government is not allowed (Not Authorized) to own that land..

Period.

The Constitution describes exactly what the Fed is Allowed to own. and that ain't it.

What ever it takes to get it in the hands of those who would use it best. Perhaps just give it to them.

Edit: Oh I forgot, it's not theirs to give.

Guess it will just have to stay in limbo then.

 

[phill4paul]

It's not necessarily 'taken over', a lot of that land, people just don't want to live there.

People lived there, for a time, while hunting hooved beasts. Beasts that were killed out by the government so they could claim the land. Free range. Abundant. Once upon a time in America.

 

[Origanalist]

People lived there, for a time, while hunting hooved beasts. Beasts that were killed out by the government so they could claim the land. Free range. Abundant. Once upon a time in America.

That picture always makes me sick.