For Bush so Loved the Children He Wants to Sell our National Forests

The self proclaimed "Educator in Chief" has a wonderful plan to offset his budget cuts to education...

Sell off our national forests to the highest bidder!

That's just good old, long term strategic thinking right there.


www.citizen-times.com.../20060219/NEWS01/60218028

www.roanoke.com...

www.yubanet.com...

www.news-leader.com.../20060216/OPINIONS03/602160314/1006

www.charlotte.com...

A crazy idea

It's nuts to sell national forest lands to finance schoolsThe Bush administration has announced plans to sell off 307,000 acres of national forest across the country to pay for rural schools. There's a good word for that idea: Crazy.

The White House obviously hasn't listened to anything the state of North Carolina has said in years. Otherwise, administration officials might have heard that just before Gov. Jim Hunt went out of office in 2000, this state adopted an ambitious goal of conserving a million acres of land in 10 years. To date, the state has set aside a little more than 352,000 acres -- about one-third of its goal after nearly two-thirds of the time.

President Bush's plan would reverse some of this state's hard-fought gains. While a significant acreage of North Carolina (2.7 million acres) is held by local, state and federal governments, the president proposes to put up for sale nearly 10,000 acres in the Croatan, Nantahala, Pisgah and Uwharrie National Forests in this state. Those forests lie near the coast, in the Piedmont and in Western North Carolina. The administration also would sell 4,700 acres of the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests in South Carolina. Justification? Some parcels are outside the boundaries of enclosed national forests.

Viewing such outparcels as expendable assets requires a constipated view of the value of conservation. Many people do not realize that the Uwharrie National Forest, for example, comprises a larger number of such parcels because it has been difficult and at times expensive to acquire privately held land for the forest. But many family farms and other rural enterprises have continued to thrive next door to those discrete, jigsaw-puzzle parcels of federal land.

President Bush has argued that selling the federal lands would help pay for rural schools, often near the forests that might be sold. But selling off assets is the wrong way to pay for government operations. If the president and his party were not such avid borrow-and-spenders bent on running up more record deficits, the administration would not be so strapped for education funds -- or so eager to sacrifice these national treasures. File this idea in the loony bin.

I don't see the problem. Since Bush and his rubber stamp Congress fast tracked all the manufacturing jobs south of the border, we need the kind of service jobs that will come from cutting the grass of the millionaires that will swoop in and build lake front mansions in our national forests. And if we're lucky, maybe they'll clear cut some mountain tops for a golf course. That's dozens of jobs for economically depressed areas like rural North Carolina. Plus think of the children. He's doing it for the kids.

:shk:

This country can't afford another three years of this idiot.

Does nobody actually support this? I've seen plenty of backlash, but no support. Not one Congressman sign on to defend.

So does this mean it won't happen, or will be this be one of these "let's not mention until we call a midnight vote" thing?

Hope they try this before November.

I suppose the problem is the supporters of selling off our national resources are the same ones that hate we have public schools at all. But this is consistent with the administration's convoluted expansion of government for the purpose of killing all things we hold dear.

Like the $700 billion expansion of Medicare into an unsustainable mess. And their threats to "fix" Social Security in a similar fashion. Or No Child Left Behind, which is just about getting vouchers in the hands of more people. So buck up patriots. This is surely about killing our public schools as much as it is clear cutting our national treasures. Remember, you can only sell it once, then the county no longer gets the revenues from lost taxes they currently do for sustaining national parks. So it's a lose/lose just like the Republicans want. Don't worry. Everyone suffers.

So where's that 'compassionate conservative' support for our President's plan?

Originally posted by RANT
So where's that 'compassionate conservative' support for our President's plan?

They put their opinion (anonymously, of course) in the tagging section. Where all opinions and political comments should go.

Where were you when Clinton gave our national parks and forests to the U.N.?
Glad to see you getting on board, but I wish you weren't late for the party!

Well put me down for one thousand acres with beach front and I promise to hire at lest four illegals,,,,,. Ah uhm forget it, who wants a holiday home in a Totalitarian, Fascist Democracy anyway. [/sarc]
Sadly a hand full of Banksters will make a fortune over this, the same Banksters that helped this and other Presidents bankrupt your country. I heard some where that the biggest product exported from the US now is jobs and raw hide.

giddy up little doggies


[edit on 20/2/2006 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Where were you when Clinton gave our national parks and forests to the U.N.?
Glad to see you getting on board, but I wish you weren't late for the party!

that wasn't for the purpose of LOGGING...

they were given as a token of good will

Perhaps you should stop worrying if it is right or wrong and start worrying about if it is legal.

Can the feds claim those lands and/or sell them? To whom do those lands really "belong"?

To my knowledge (I admit I am too lazy to actually research it) the constitution did not originally allow for the feds to "own" land outside of 10 miles in DC and what it needed for post offices, postal roads, military bases and offices, and all of that with the blessing of the individual state.

I could be wrong, I often am, but I don’t think I am that far off.

Of course, nature worshipers cant use the constitution to stop government use of public lands because of all the other unconstitutional "laws" that nature worshipers tend to support, like thinking that "shall not be infringed" actually means "must have trigger lock" or my personal favorite "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" actually means "ripping the head and limbs from babies."

So you let them do what they wanted when "them" was "you" but now that "them" is "them" you want your rights back. You can’t save the forests you hold above man and I have to let my children be bussed to an institution for 8 hours a day or run afoul of the law.

Well then, I guess you nature worshipers have to sleep in the bed you defecated in, the same bed our heads have been laid to rest in.

Just let the LP know when you all are ready for us to clean up the excrement, OK?

Oh, and thanks allot.

You just gotta love the "Blame Clinton too crowd" they always give me a big LOL moment. Cause I'll be reading comment after comment just waiting for it and boom! there it is. Clinton did it too or something similar as if that justifies everything when actually it proves more than we know.

Great idea! Less power for the Government, and more for its citizens. I see no problem with this.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Great idea! Less power for the Government, and more for its citizens. I see no problem with this.

I agree. Of course there should be regulation to how companies manage these forests/Wildland. Companies won't want to loose out on their investment so they would take better care of their wilderness to attract more bussiness.

Fishing grounds for example. Who would take better care of it, the goverment or the people whose livleyhood depend on it? If they have gotten this bad with the goverment why not try it privitized, with regualtion of course.

example of what some Capsian countries are doing to save the stergoun population
www.tve.org...

Originally posted by Saphronia

You just gotta love the "Blame Clinton too crowd" they always give me a big LOL moment. Cause I'll be reading comment after comment just waiting for it and boom! there it is. Clinton did it too or something similar as if that justifies everything when actually it proves more than we know.

Yes, Clinton, at the end of his turn did a number of things that were illeagel. Second, aside from newyorks UN head quarters giving land to ANY foriegn nation should be against the constitution unless its on a ballot and people choose to give away land. What is the UN going to do with it anyways?

Secondly I would like to appologize to everyone here at ATS and to the world, for i voted for this monkey in the last election. I still think he was a wiser choice then Kerry.

Brings me to my final point..... WHY IS IT ALWAYS REP VS DEM????? what happend to simply having a view of a politcal topic without being sorted into one of these damn parties? It's foolish to think that somply because Bush supports something you assume the oh so pashinate conservatives will back him up! why did you get remarks about Clinton? because you allienate people who ARE republicans by attacking them like this, like you expect all republicans to want to sell off our nature reserves! IGNORANT. I would bet if everyone stoped argueing and attacking people based on their politcal party, and got some honest Americans to act on what they believe and not what there party says you should, we would get something done in this country! Why do people vote for Bush or for Kerry when it was a battle to be the lesser of two evils? because peopleaffiliate them selves with political parties and follow suit to what their part chooses.

/rant off

wow, this isn't about getting rid of government power, it's trying to put a bandaid on the national debt

we are going to lose wilderness to clear cutting because of this

the environment is something we need, we're part of it

losing a forest for a quick buck should be looked down on dammit!

Okay, so here is the "I HATE NATURE WORSHIPERS" crowd. They dont' understand or even give a goddam care about it. They call themselves "PRO LIFE" but then they destroy the very basis of life from where we come from, nature, and all of God's creation. We have taken from nature so much why not give a little bit back???

Rockpuck,
I do think you made some good points.
I agree with what most people have been saying. I like our wild life rufuges and dont want to see them destroyed.
As to the the two party system, I dont really see that significantly changeing any time soon.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Secondly I would like to appologize to everyone here at ATS and to the world, for i voted for this monkey in the last election.

I still think he was a wiser choice then Kerry.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Oh well, done now. Yeah, Kerry... What were they thinking? I wish Gore was awarded the election though. I mean, he did win it. We might have a viable energy policy by now The more I see of Gore, the more I like him now. I hope he runs.

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Secondly I would like to appologize to everyone here at ATS and to the world, for i voted for this monkey in the last election.

I still think he was a wiser choice then Kerry.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Oh well, done now. Yeah, Kerry... What were they thinking? I wish Gore was awarded the election though. I mean, he did win it. We might have a viable energy policy by now

The more I see of Gore, the more I like him now. I hope he runs.

Gore is very enviromentaly friendly, which would be great if he could pass some new laws if he ever got to be president. From my memory of watching the debates though he kind of scared me, I thought if Bush says one thing wrong gore was going to punch him! The way he walked and stared and puffed up lol.. he didn't seem all that nice in the election.

Zaphod strikes again.

the faces change but the song remains the same


(that's not about any posters here it's just about the Hitchhikers movie)

[edit on 12-6-2006 by ed 209]