It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That does sound about right. Now ... what happens to the 6.5 mil? How many people do you have to divide that up by? How much has to be saved for the inheritance tax? Ad nauseum.
seaez
reply to post by Snarl
So you agree with the figures?
Looking at the income side, the FBM records from 2010 indicate the average weight of calves sold at weaning time was 594 pounds. Using a current price of $158 per hundredweight (cwt) for 600 pound cattle and rounding the weight off at 600 pounds means a weaned calf value of $948. But to accurately determine the cost of the cow, he said, you must also consider the eventual price the cow will bring once she is culled from the herd and the longevity of the cow in the herd.
Using information from the CHAPS (Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software) program of the N.D. Beef Cattle Improvement Association, the average cow age in the state is 5.7 years, which means the average number of calf crops per cow is 4.7, since she doesn't calf that first year. Current cull prices would pay $70 per cwt., which would come to $910 for a 1300 pound cow.
The various figures are now ready to be gathered together and the value of the cow determined:
Income 4.7 calf crops @ $948/ year = $4455.60
Cull cow sale = $910.00
Total income with 3 percent death loss adjustment = $5204.63
Expenses Pasture for 4.7 years @ $216/year = $1015.20 Winter feed for 4.7 years @ $252/year = $1184.40 Yardage for 4.7 years @$90/year = $423.00 Total expenses = $2622.60
Net income over life of cow = $2582.03
If a producer would like to realize a profit of $200 per head each year that would be an additional cost of $940 over the life of the cow, meaning that the value to pay for a bred heifer would be $1642.03.
Net Income over life of cow * # of cow lifetimes in 20 years * # of cows (900) is over 6.5 million
seaez
Snarl
reply to post by seaez
I owned more cattle than Bundy. Believe me, I didn't get rich. You can make a good living ... but you'll work your butt off doing it. Why should the government get more of a cut off your cattle than the taxes you pay after taking them to market? The grazing fees they're after are just another tax used for the purpose of wealth redistribution.
You owned cows, do the numbers at the link below jive? Because that has him with over $2 million dollars of cattle on federal lands, more if you take into account the economic reality of him grazing his cattle off federal lands and not paying for it:
www.farmandranchguide.com...
In this case, rich rancher making money off of federal lands - I agree with the wealth redistribution, as in him paying for his fair share of the land. If the land is so horrible why would he want his cows there? Why not allow another rancher who is willing to pay the grazing fees?
Snarl
reply to post by seaez
Here's the telling bottom line from your source document. You need look no further.
If a producer would like to realize a profit of $200 per head each year
Nobody really gets rich off of raising cattle. You 'can' make a lot of money off a self-sustaining ranch, but it is the hardest work I have ever done in my entire life ... and there is Tremendous financial risk for the rancher (Mother Nature can be harder on you than the government ... and nobody cares).
There are far easier ways of making money. Bundy knows he's just too old to move away and start a new endeavor. Somebody in one of these threads said, "Unstoppable force -vs- immovable object" ... and that's really what we have here. It's not doing anyone any good ... and over what? Bundy's million $50K/year fee ... that the government would blow in less than 5 minutes?
People were ready to kill over this because the government made a mountain out of a molehill. Something's just broke!!
That does sound about right. Now ... what happens to the 6.5 mil? How many people do you have to divide that up by? How much has to be saved for the inheritance tax? Ad nauseum.
Net Income over life of cow * # of cow lifetimes in 20 years * # of cows (900) is over 6.5 million
$6.5M ain't jack squat over 20 years. How much is the host of The Young Turks making ... and contrast that with the work he does, by the efforts of the Bundy's, and by what the consumer gets from it. If I'm not making my point clearly, we need to talk about something completely different.
seaez
My issue is his sense of entitlement and the $6.5M made on Federal land, over grazing it by a factor of 10 times (per a lawsuit claim) without paying the $1M in fees over the 20 years to use the Federal land.
Bundy has never claimed the land was his. In every interview, he clearly states it's not his land. Post some proof of you claim.
buster2010
burntheships
reply to post by buster2010
Really, then I suppose you are going to take a stand against the BLM for
going beyond the law as they killed cattle, destroyed protected Desert
Tortoise burrows...destroyed property without a legal ground to stand on?
On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.
However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.
"Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks ... desert environment, shoot cattle," Houston said.
url
www.sfgate.com...edit on 16-4-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)
Were these structures on federal land or Bundy's land? Bundy likes to claim this land as his which it isn't but if it was on federal land then they have a right to tear them down without court order. You may want to reread your second link because it in no way supports Bundy.
Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.” In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”
Mamatus
Second, I have said from the beginning that Bundy had no claim to the land. The entire situation is kind of like having someone let your family live in an extra house they had rent free for 100 years. Then the owner of that house coming back to you and saying that they were happy to loan you the house but times have changed and they would like you to start paying rent to continue to live in that house. Now, instead of gratitude for the last 100 years of rent free living the people that have lived in that house, your entire family and many others, pull out guns and forcibly attempt to steal the house.
Olivine
UxoriousMagnus
The Federal Government can not legally own land other than for military forts, compounds and buildings for the establishment of organizations that they need (Courts, Congress, USPS, etc)
They can and do legally own the Federal lands out west. Your constitutional interpretation is outdated, so says the Supreme Court. Do you not recognize the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court, either?
But Bret Birdsong, a professor at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and an expert on public land and natural resources litigation, said Bundy's legal arguments that federal rangers and BLM staff have no jurisdiction over the federal lands he uses for ranching "are based on interpretation of the Constitution which has been debunked by the Supreme Court for many years."
"That is clearly not the law," he said.
Source
buster2010
ScientiaFortisDefendit
Regardless of what the socialist mouthpiece Cenk Uygur says, the ownership of the land is a red herring. The issue that people have is with the massive armed response by the federal government to COWS MUNCHING GRASS.
By the way, CU debunked nothing.edit on 16-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)
This may come as a shock to you but if you keep trespassing on Federal land even after losing in court and you keep trespassing they will eventually do something about it.
Mamatus
Found this from Cenk Uygur (Young Turks) on Live Leak this morning. Maybe I am late posting it. Did a quick search of Bundy Ranch and it did not come up. This was a response to the Storm Clouds Gathering conspiracy video recently posted on YouTube and linked here.
Not sure how to embed Live Leak videos here to I will just drop a link. If someone will tell me how to embed it that would be great.
www.liveleak.com...
Now my take on this:
First, I think Cenk to be a pretty upstanding dude when it comes to investigative reporting. Like any other media outlet it is always good to double check the facts being tosses out. So I did and I could find nothing ambiguous or misleading in his facts.
Second, I have said from the beginning that Bundy had no claim to the land. The entire situation is kind of like having someone let your family live in an extra house they had rent free for 100 years. Then the owner of that house coming back to you and saying that they were happy to loan you the house but times have changed and they would like you to start paying rent to continue to live in that house. Now, instead of gratitude for the last 100 years of rent free living the people that have lived in that house, your entire family and many others, pull out guns and forcibly attempt to steal the house.
IMO Bundy is not a good American, he is a trouble making ingrate. It is sad how many people will blindly follow along with him.
Keep in mind I am no fan of BLM as I got screwed over by them pretty hard myself, to the tune of 80k. I am still trying to recover and had I the extra cash I would have eventually won in Court as a local rancher conspired with BLM to remove my legally (and permitted) business from the area. I unlike Bundy did get screwed over. However, the facts remain the same in this case. Bundy has no rights to that land and never did.edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: Gwammer and speeeeling
MsAphrodite
reply to post by Quauhtli
This is exactly why we now see them pushing veganism. It is everywhere recently. It is to support a political agenda.