Interesting Maps

CowDoc wrote:

Coming from a red county in a red state, I believe that the map has much more significance than has been mentioned here. It is really very similar to the 2000 map, which I once heard described by a speaker at a national meeting with the phrase "The people in the blue counties depend on the people in the red counties for their very survival". The unavoidable fact is that the red counties contain the resource-producing areas of the country, whether you want to call it farming, ranching, logging, mining, or virtually any other production-based economy you wish to name. The Democratic emphasis on taking care of its citizens, rather than relying on citizens to take care of themselves, does not play well in rural areas. Although I have not been in big-city life for many years, it does seem to me that urban residents generally want more assistance from government, and that rural dwellers would more often just like to be left the hell alone. In that context, the map make more sense than I would like. To me, it exemplifies the true urban/rural division that this country has undergone during the past several decades. This in itself I find troubling, and I certainly do not foresee any improvement in the immediate future. Any consoling comments?

On the contrary,kflux and CowDoc. Most of the rural areas and red states are net-tax losers while states with thriving urban areas (most of the blue states) are net-tax gainers. In other words, the general trend is the exact opposite of what you believe. On average, blue states finance the red states, many of which are dependent on federal entitlements. If rural areas were "left alone" they would be much poorer and urban areas would be richer. Perhaps you should reconsider your stereotypes about who would be better of with pure (social spending free) capitalism. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38246. This is even more evident on the state level. Look are New York, California, and Virginia?-the rural areas of those states are utterly dependent on their urban counterparts for funding. Northern Virginia (Arlington and Fairfax county, including wealthy suburbs and urban areas) would LOVE to be left alone by rural VA?-the rest of the state bleeds them dry (I'm originally from VA).

0 Replies

To explore this theory further i would recommend the philosophy and Debate thread " socilism , should we give it another try"

0 Replies

steppnwolf , are you takeing into consideration that allot of the business in the city own land in and or get the materials they need inorder to make that money from the Red states. having your headqurters in NYC or LA dose not mean the product bringing in the cash comes from thoses places.

0 Replies

kflux wrote:

steppnwolf , are you takeing into consideration that allot of the business in the city own land in and or get the materials they need inorder to make that money from the Red states. having your headqurters in NYC or LA dose not mean the product bringing in the cash comes from thoses places.

Raw material is a poor proxy for the breadth of capital and economic value in this country; it is merely one element of the finished product. Besides, our economy is dominated by services. Moreover, if you're suggesting that ownership and management of the means of production (urban based) are less important than the workers who physically produce the goods or harvest the raw materials (rural based), then you should rethink your position on socialism.

Choose for yourself kflux; is it the owner or the worker that forms the core of the economy? Keep in mind: you're a capitalist. Smile

0 Replies

it is the combination of both my dear , i never said otherwise .
i stated only that the cultural differences are in part being fueled by the ideas of the two different concepts of government

0 Replies

btw did you read every thing i said on socilism , yes i am a capitalist , however that dose not mean that i down play the importance of workers . without both working together both would be domed.

0 Replies

kflux wrote:

it is the combination of both my dear , i never said otherwise .
i stated only that the cultural differences are in part being fueled by the ideas of the two different concepts of government

"My dear," eh? Lol. Don't misunderstand the scope of my argument. It wasn't I who first brought socialism into this thread. I argued merely that stereotypes about who is riding on whose back are incorrect. I would also argue that judgments about who is a capitalist and who is a socialist on the basis of behavior (i.e. who promotes and engages in extra-market redistributions) lead to a different conclusion than the one you appear to propose--it turns out that rural areas and thier representatives engage in significant redistribution. My observation holds true unless you value workers and raw goods more than does the market. The market's valuation has led to comparatively higher salaries for managers and skilled service providers. With respect to owners, American corporate law and property law reflect a bias towards equity holders (and creditors) rather than labor?-this bias is in line with capitalist mores. In the U.S., major corporations are owned primarily by institutional and wealthy investors?-most (not all) of these institutions and investors are urban or suburban based.

As I said before, on average, money flows from urban and suburban to rural areas. If this were merely an exchange in the context of sales, you could rightly claim that urban and rural areas are equally dependant on one another. In fact, government spending and taxing evinces extra-market redistributions in favor of rural people, which should throw claims previously made in this thread into doubt. When I bring up empirical evidence of this redistribution, I hope not to be countered by anecdotal evidence or innuendo about the socialist leanings of urban people and the capitalist leanings of rural people. If you wish to take this tact, expect me to critically examine your capitalist, free-market credentials. Furthermore, even if a certain type of people claim to favor capitalism and disfavor redistribution, expect me to look at actual behavior and spending data rather than taking mere words at face value.

I also haven't brought up this point about redistribution sua sponte; it was prompted by contrary claims. I look forward to empirical data to that suggest that rural people do not actually benefit from redistribution or vote for representatives that support rural redistribution. Until then, I won't tolerate "capitalists" with sickles and hammers in their hands (tongue in cheek Smile

--I don't actually think that you're a communist; I want to challenge your understanding of our economic and political systems).

0 Replies

The government sells public ground to industry for about 6 dollars an acre. This gives them the right to mineral and lumber rights on said ground. An acre of ground in the midwest west on which farming is done goes for about $4000 per acre. This dosent take into account the cost of building roads for the lumber industry so they can get thier lumber out of the forest which is paid for by the government. Ranchers rent grass lands for almost nothing and graze thier cattle on it and we foot the bill for this also. But when we talk about government grants we never include these people in the discussion. Public lands belong to every citizen in the US but only special interest groupes git the benefit of it. We, the US citizens pay taxes to pay the administrative costs of these giveaways. The people who get the benefit of this government giveaways git very heated when someone like me points out that they are walfare recipiants just like the inner city people they look down on and feel so superior to. I think this is called hypocracy.

0 Replies

Rabel, just where did you get your information. My county is 92% federal land, and I can assure you from firsthand knowledge that your facts are utter fantasy that I constantly hear repeated by preservationist organizations. Incidentally, these groups are ALWAYS from "blue" counties.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

... when someone like me points out ...

way too many things, its all too often "pointed out" from ill-informed talking points, bereft of fact, counter to evidence, and indicative of either or both ignorance of and/or disregard for reality.

0 Replies

The people getting the benefit of the federal farm subsidies are the large corporate farms: 20% of farmers are receiving 80% of the subsidies. The federal government is speeding the decline of the small farming towns, rather than keeping them viable. (http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w111/agrgov$.htm)

The amount of money is pretty staggering:

Quote:

From 1995 to 2002 the U.S. taxpayer doled out more than $114 billion to farmers, and in 2002 President Bush upped subsidies to $190 billion over the next 10 years. For perspective, consider that in the year 2000 alone, U.S. spending on farm subsidies exceeded the gross domestic product of more than 70 nations, based on federal government figures.

...

Quote:

Farm subsidies are not intended to reduce the cost of food significantly. If prices fell too much, farmers would lose money. To prevent this, Congress also has "environmental" conservation subsidies that pay farmers not to cultivate their land, resulting in higher prices for crops that are thus made scarcer. Consequently, from 1995 through 2002 we paid $14 billion for farmland conservation subsidies that increased the price of our food.

(The Enduring Political Illusion of Farm Subsidies)

Still at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich and Famous Shattered Records in 2001

Farm money helps Bush as candidates target rural voters

0 Replies

CowDoc wrote:

Rabel, just where did you get your information. My county is 92% federal land, and I can assure you from firsthand knowledge that your facts are utter fantasy that I constantly hear repeated by preservationist organizations. Incidentally, these groups are ALWAYS from "blue" counties.

Quote:

If you've ever seen the Lemhi Valley in Idaho, it's not hard to imagine why Michael and Carolyn Thomas chose to return there to ranch with his parents. Salmon, population 3,000, is located at the forks of the Salmon and Lemhi Rivers. ... snip

As natives like Michael know, it's a beautiful place to live, but a hard place to make a living in agriculture, the main industry. A total of 92% of Idaho's land is federal or state-owned. ... snip

Combining the two ranches, the Thomases have 1,300 to 1,400 private acres, including 250 irrigated acres. They also have a Bureau of Land Management grazing lease.

Source

Quote:

Last week, in Clark County, a retired railroad engineer from Jackson, Wyo., outbid Larry Lee of Mud Lake for the grazing rights on 2,885 acres of state land. Lee was outbid by T.R. Shelby, who paid $46,000 for the 10-year lease, $1,000 more than Lee offered.

Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

0 Replies

Quote:

Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

This displays such ignorance and contempt for the folks who feed you. The only reason ranchers/farmers need to use federal land is because the federal government owns the majority of the land and individuals cannot possibly purchase enough land (because it isn't available) to operate. Without use of adequate land, we import even more of our food and export even more jobs and the same people who whine about federal land use, whine about jobs and imbalanced trade deficits.

Stepp is correct - tax money flows from urban areas to rural areas. BUT a huge reason for that is because groups in urban areas prevent people in rural areas from using resources to their full potential, effectively crippling rural economies.

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

Quote:
Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

This displays such ignorance and contempt for the folks who feed you. The only reason ranchers/farmers need to use federal land is because the federal government owns the majority of the land and individuals cannot possibly purchase enough land (because it isn't available) to operate. Without use of adequate land, we import even more of our food and export even more jobs and the same people who whine about federal land use, whine about jobs and imbalanced trade deficits.

Stepp is correct - tax money flows from urban areas to rural areas. BUT a huge reason for that is because groups in urban areas prevent people in rural areas from using resources to their full potential, effectively crippling rural economies.

I don't think the crack about grazing rights was meant to imply that no federal land should be used for such. Rather that sometimes you pay your money and take your chances when you live in a capitalist economy.

0 Replies

Timber
Before you knock a person you would do well to investigate thier claim. Check out newsmax.com The article "Foriegn companies buy maining rights on public land. Printed on November 24, 2004. Im not going to look through and post all the information because im sure you already knew this.

0 Replies

rabel, Back here,

You wrote:

The government sells public ground to industry for about 6 dollars an acre ...

an inaccuracy, in that The Federal Government does not sell the land, but rather grants patents pertainining to the land, which patents may be converted by the holders to resource exploitation leaseholds under the provisions of public laws enacted in 1866 and 1872 (Mining Law of 1866, 14 Stat. 251), and The General Mining Law of 1872, (17 Stat. 91 - codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 21-54), 1920 (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 437), and 1947 and 1955 (Surface Resources Act of 1947, 69 Stat. 367 as ammended 1955 - codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 601-15). Suggested further reading would include 1997's HR 253, HR 778 and its companion, HR 780, all of which have been languishing for the better part of a decade, but that's really neither here nor there per this discussion. What is at issue is the assertion public lands were sold, which is not the case. Recurring-payment leases permitting resource exploitation were granted, with requirement that reclamation of the land to condition once more suitable to public use upon cessation of resource exploitation be effected at leaseholder cost, and in many but not all instances further requiring royalties be paid to the public treasury based on the market value of the resources exploited.

then you wrote:

This gives them the right to mineral and lumber rights on said ground.

Thats all that is granted, the right to exploit resources, and with that right goes the obligation to clean up afterward.

It should be noted too that there has been an effective moratorium on the granting of new patents and leaseholds since 1994.

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

Mesquite wrote:
Grazing leases may be vital to ranchers, but that's too bad

This displays such ignorance and contempt for the folks who feed you. The only reason ranchers/farmers need to use federal land is because the federal government owns the majority of the land and individuals cannot possibly purchase enough land (because it isn't available) to operate. Without use of adequate land, we import even more of our food and export even more jobs and the same people who whine about federal land use, whine about jobs and imbalanced trade deficits.

Stepp is correct - tax money flows from urban areas to rural areas. BUT a huge reason for that is because groups in urban areas prevent people in rural areas from using resources to their full potential, effectively crippling rural economies.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. The quote from my post is not a statement by me. It is a link (click on it) to an article in the Pocatello Idaho State Journal by that title. The article had some factual data on the costs of grazing leases. It looks like about $1.60/acre/yr.

Quote:

Last week, in Clark County, a retired railroad engineer from Jackson, Wyo., outbid Larry Lee of Mud Lake for the grazing rights on 2,885 acres of state land. Lee was outbid by T.R. Shelby, who paid $46,000 for the 10-year lease, $1,000 more than Lee offered.

Similar activities to those described in the article are occuring here in Arizona also. I share your concern about the quantity of imported food and the disappearance of farm and ranch lands.

0 Replies

Mesquite, the leases are based on neither years nor acres. They are instead based on Animal Unit Months (AUM's). As such, they are not subject to the differences in grazing efficiency, but they are subject to the whims of federal biologists, who hold all the cards in determining how many cattle or sheep can be on a allotment for how long. Most AUM will run about a dollar and a half per month per animal, but the prices are tied to the cattle market. They rise and fall with the price of cattle to make sure that the price is fair, but the rancher will be able to afford to graze public lands. Out here, public lands grazing is an integral part of our Community Wildfire Prevention Plan, because grazing reduces fast fuels and ladder fuels that contribute to the risk to our community. Since all the Forest Service attempts at harvest have been tied up by the appeals process, grazing is the best tool we have to use for fire prevention through land management.

0 Replies

Timber
What difference does it make wether they sell the ground or the minerals. Industry is buying the rights to minerals for penneys on rhe dollar. This is public domain which should be paid for at actual value instead of the present system of graft through political contributions. The oil in the alaskan park will go to some oil company for almost nothing. The taxpayers will git squat from the oil company for this oil. If you think different than you are as stupid as you claimed I am in a previous post.

0 Replies

I would submit, ravel, that you appear to be reading into what was said that which you prefer to believe was said, something which I believe rather handily validates the actual point to which my earlier comment went.

Note that I do not defend Federal Land Use Management, but rather point out the legislation behind it is antiquated and in serious need of overhaul. The Bureau of Lamd Management may not be doing what is best for The Nation and its people, but none the less it is doing that which by law it is, and for over a century and a half has been, mandated to do. Conditions today are very different from conditions prevailing in the latter half of the 19th Century. The laws relevant to the present discussion are not.

And I believe those who believe ill will come from the responsible, environmentally and economically sound exploitation of such natural resources as those contained withinn ANWR, by their very opposition, further validate my point.

0 Replies

Interesting Maps

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know