Gov Easley opposes Bush land sale in NC

[Sly]

Do you know what the difference is between George Bush and the Libs? George Bush has not forgotten about 9/11.

You're FOS!

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

[Scribe]

I talked to the Forest Service's PR person. She told me that the FS was asked by the "Bush Administration" to identify tracts of land in each district. They did. As Harry Truman, another Missourian, said "The buck stops here". The President is responsible.

Most of the money from the proposed sales, by the way, would go to Oregon. North Carolina wouldn't see much, if any.

[Almost There]

Oh come on! Sleepwalker up until about a year ago I used to think alot as you did. Did I go over to the other side? Heck no! I became disillusioned with both sides! They both are selfserving and if you truly examine the 20th century you will see that overspending has occurred anytime that any one party has complete control...and to be fair Mowgli it has always been the case that the party not in power at the time has claimed to be the more "fiscally" responsible of the two. It's alot of "hooey". The country would be better served if we had a balance between legislative and executive branches. Unfortunately we don't have this right now. Did Bush know of all the land sales???? Probably not, but I am sure he was briefed on it and in a basic sense knew of the gist of the deal. As far as land management...what exactly does the Forest Service have to do to manage the land. For that matter how did nature used to survive before the U.S. was formed in North America? Oh that's right...we can't follow the "healthy forest initiative" unless we can get into the back country, which means we can't log "at risk" forest areas. Understand most of the money in these land sales will go to the rural schools out west in Oregon and Washington. It won't stay in the areas of the sale. I have looked into this...have you? Examine where the federal gov't has sent the most money to rural schools in the last 5 years...the answer is Oregon far and above the rest of the country...this will continue under the current plan.

Now going back to be fair. Mowgli you are correct that at "this time" more money has been spent in the last few years in Republican dominated districts...however when you look at the 20th century as a whole...post WWII...not necessarily the case when looking at all of the social programs that have been implemented. Each party takes advantage of their power when in power. Usually the pendulum swings back and forth...but as of late the pendulum has swung to the far right...and so there are problems. In all things balance is usually good or at least o.k. Extremism in any form is bad. Time for a change? I think so...not because I hate republicans but because it is best for the health of our country. You guys debate things that can't be truly judged in the moment. Historians tend to measure a presidents administration at the earliest...at least five years after, because many programs don't show their true colors until several years after implementation.

Look at it this way...why do we put money into IRAs or 401Ks? To take the money out in a year, 5 years, 10 years? No so that when we retire 20-30 years down the road there has been time for that money to compound and grow. If we measured our investments after a year we would say they're barely noticeable, would you blame your investment advisor? Of course not, this is understood that time will allow the investment to grow, it would be unrealistic to expect a "safe" investment to show radical growth after a year. However, Americans in the last 40 years have had a habit of expecting swift results from our gov't...some might say unrealistic expectations.

I never thought Iraq would go fast, I always expected we would be there 5-7 years, however, I also expected that we would fight a smart war. We haven't done this, why my change in heart? My best friend did two tours...one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. He was an intelligence officer and he grew very disillusioned based upon the intel he saw. Everything said we needed more soldiers, equipment, etc., however, none ever came. Bush would say that if his generals asked for more they would get what they needed, but it is well known amongst many of these people that the position of the White House is that we can win with what we have. By the time a general hits 3 or 4 stars his job has become more political than anything. Piss off the wrong person and your career comes to a grinding halt. You cease to get promoted and begin to stare at retirement. For these guys it would be career suicide to go against a president. Want examples? Here are two of career suicide and one of political success. They are possibly the three greatest generals of the twentieth century. George Patton and Douglas MacCarthur had a habit of saying and doing what they thought was right regardless of politics. Two of the last truly "military" generals that we have had in this country. What happens...Patton sees his career path halted, only later did we find out that the German High Command truly regarded him as the Allies' best general, heck we used him as a decoy around the period of D-Day. He also predicted what the Soviets might do. Douglas MacCarthur goes into Korea leads an assault deep into N. Korea stands at the Chinese border ready to go in. President orders him to hold, he criticizes president and is forced into retirement. That leaves us with Dwight Eisenhower, our truly first political coalition general. Why the high command? It wasn't due to his military prowess but rather his political abilities. Commendable to be sure, but all the same, he would not go against the politicians back home. He is the model for most modern American Generals...and hence they don't go against their commander in chiefs wishes, either said or unsaid.

The point is the President has made some mistakes...he's human I can accept this, and at times have even defended him...what I have a problem with is he can never admit this...his is a world black and white, with him or against him. Sorry but this isn't what America is about. We are and always have been a country of gray hues. It is what has made this country great.

[Teatime]

Thanks for joining the fray! I was getting tired of being the only conservative around here. Also, I am very dissipointed in the Republican Congress. They have been outspending the Dems. Shame on them. Where is Gnewt when you need him?

I have to know...do you libs actually think Pres Bush sat down, put pen to paper and penned a law to, with complete disregard, sell national park and forest land? Then after having done this, using his executive priveledge, circumvented congress to make this diabolical scheme happen? All by himself? Is that what you believe?

The truth is, the president would probably never even be briefed on such a small land sale. And if it were included in existing law, it would be stuck in as a line item right in betwen liberal pork projects and the newest welfare handout guidelines. Unreal, the ignorance is mindboggling.

[MOWGLI]

First, what source are you citing.

AP Analysis: Billions in federal spending shifted to GOP districts after 1994 House takeover
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

The 1994 revolution that gave Republicans control of the House produced a seismic shift in federal spending, moving tens of billions of dollars from Democratic to GOP districts, an Associated Press analysis shows.

Rather than pork-barrel projects for new GOP districts, the change was driven mostly by Republican policies that moved spending from poor rural and urban areas to the more affluent suburbs and GOP-leaning farm country, the computer analysis showed.

The result was an average of $612 million more in federal spending last year for congressional districts represented by Republicans than for those represented by Democrats, the analysis found. That translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps.

"There is an old adage," said House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.). "To the victor goes the spoils."

House Democratic Conference Chairman Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said the spending shift demonstrates that "who's in the majority does make a difference."

Republican House districts received an average of $3.9 billion in 1995, and that ballooned to $5.8 billion in 2001, a 52 percent increase, the analysis found. Over the same period, spending in Democratic districts on average increased only 34 percent, from $3.9 billion to $5.2 billion.

When Democrats last controlled the House and wrote the 1995 budget, the average Democratic district got $35 million more than the average GOP district.

Armey and other GOP leaders say the spending shift wasn't part of a premeditated strategy, although they acknowledge directing federal spending toward districts where Republican representatives are politically vulnerable.


By the way, your profile says you're from Albany, NY but when you talk it appears you're from all over the map.

Now where were we? Oh yeah. You were about to "tear me apart."

By the way, and for the record, both parties spend too much and neither reflects my priorities.

[Teatime]

I think we can all agree that the Fed. Govt spends to much and has superseeded its contstitutionaly mandated powers. This isn't anything new. It goes back at least to the Civil War (War for Southern Independence to us Southern folk ). Artice X of the Bill of Rights has been pretty much trashed for a long time.

AP Analysis: Billions in federal spending shifted to GOP districts after 1994 House takeover
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

The 1994 revolution that gave Republicans control of the House produced a seismic shift in federal spending, moving tens of billions of dollars from Democratic to GOP districts, an Associated Press analysis shows.

Rather than pork-barrel projects for new GOP districts, the change was driven mostly by Republican policies that moved spending from poor rural and urban areas to the more affluent suburbs and GOP-leaning farm country, the computer analysis showed.

The result was an average of $612 million more in federal spending last year for congressional districts represented by Republicans than for those represented by Democrats, the analysis found. That translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps.

"There is an old adage," said House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.). "To the victor goes the spoils."

House Democratic Conference Chairman Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said the spending shift demonstrates that "who's in the majority does make a difference."

Republican House districts received an average of $3.9 billion in 1995, and that ballooned to $5.8 billion in 2001, a 52 percent increase, the analysis found. Over the same period, spending in Democratic districts on average increased only 34 percent, from $3.9 billion to $5.2 billion.

When Democrats last controlled the House and wrote the 1995 budget, the average Democratic district got $35 million more than the average GOP district.

Armey and other GOP leaders say the spending shift wasn't part of a premeditated strategy, although they acknowledge directing federal spending toward districts where Republican representatives are politically vulnerable.


By the way, your profile says you're from Albany, NY but when you talk it appears you're from all over the map.

Now where were we? Oh yeah. You were about to "tear me apart."

By the way, and for the record, both parties spend too much and neither reflects my priorities.

[boulder]

When Clinton left we had a debt of 5.6 Trillion, soon to come down as record surpluses were already coming in and projected well into the future. Within one year, we had annual deficits that have left us with a current debt of 8.2 Trillion. The House just passed and the Senate appears likely to go along, a bill to allow the debt to expand to 9 Trillion. (By the way, most of this debt is NOT from post-9/11 related spending i.e., increased security measures). If selling land and trees is our way to deal w/budget issues, I'm not sure we have enough of either. We should remember that the "pork" we rail against is the reason why so many of our politicians get reelected. In other words, we keep reelecting those who bring money and jobs into our districts/states, thus the fault for the current situation lies in many places. If you really do oppose this kind of spending, you could send a note to your senator as the bill to increase the amount of our total debt is now before them.

[digger51]

Those sorry Republicans, how dare they send more money to farmers who actually produce something for the country than to the welfare recepients for food stamps and public housing who just suck off the public teat? Lets throw them all out and start over with people who are only concerned with their little piece of the world. Maybe hikers should rule. After all they seem concerned only with their woods and not with the rest of the needs of society, at least if helping solve those needs involves touching their prescious lands. Bet this gets some ire up.

[Almost There]

Boulder great idea, the Senate should oppose raising the Debt Limit....and hyperinflation can rule the day as America defaults on it's debt!

Digger, you are just an idiot!!! It's a little more than giving farmer subsidies and you know it. What about the breaks some companies showing profits in the billions get? Yes I know our leaders in Washington are far more concerned with the "public well being" than us lowly hikers. The problem with the spending is that it is "they on both sides of the isle" who are more concerned with their own well being than the country's as a whole.

Did you know after a Congressman gets elected he will spend 60% of his term trying to get reelected. Think about your job...if you spent 60% of your time on self promotion rather than doing your job...that would get you where? Oh yeah I believe the term is...FIRED!!!!

Welfare was not originally set up to be permanent, rather a band-aid for the problem at the time...yet today we still have it. What happens when we set a precedent to begin doing this to fill a budget shortfall? That is the point, once a precedent has been set, others think it's ok for them to sell just a "little bit". Where does that leave us in fifty years? Instead of looking for short term solutions...Congress and the White House needs to start looking for long term fixes...career suicide??? Maybe but it's time someone do the right thing rather than what is politically safe.

BTW Mowgs we may see eye to eye more than I thought....Scary, isn't it?

[MOWGLI]

Those sorry Republicans, how dare they send more money to farmers who actually produce something for the country than to the welfare recepients for food stamps and public housing who just suck off the public teat?

Supporting the family farmer is great. I'm all for it. Most of these government subsidies fall under the corporate welfare banner as agribusiness is the big recipient. Furthermore, it's only a matter of time before these subsidies are challenged in the WTO, and ruled illegal under international trade law. Mark my words on that one.

BTW, I was against GATT (WTO's predecessor) and NAFTA when Clinton was pushing it in the early 90s. Still am. The working people are getting their clock cleaned under the WTO rules.

[digger51]

Wow Almost There, its been a long time since a total moron called me an idiot. thank you for putting mein my place. Now crawl back in your room and continue playing with yourself.

[Tim Rich]

Greetings,

It's been fun to read all the political rants. I'll throw in my view on the land sales. I'm opposed to the land sale on the basis that's it's imprudent to take proceeds from fixed assets and apply them to operating expenses. The fact that the money will be allocated disproportionately between states where the land is located isn't important, because the land will go back on the tax rolls and increase revenue in the home states.

If land is to be sold, other land (or some other permanent improvement) should be purchased (or constructed).

That being said, I've looked at the parcels in Alabama (not in NC, GA or VA), and they look to have been carefully selected by the FS, and do not appear to impact the hiking public or the integrity of the NF. None of the parcels are part of the contiguous portions of Talladega or Bankhead NF. I counted 25 parcels located outside the forest boundaries. For them to have been purchased to start with, they must have been part of a package purchase of other properties lying within the designated NF boundary. All but one parcel in Bankhead is outside the NF boundary, so there's no impact on the NF or the Sipsey Wilderness Area.

I hope this initiative doesn't succeed, but if it does you can count me among the potential bidders. There are a number of nice parcels.

Take Care,

Tim

[Skyline]

I have to know...do you libs actually think Pres Bush sat down, put pen to paper and penned a law to, with complete disregard, sell national park and forest land? Then after having done this, using his executive priveledge, circumvented congress to make this diabolical scheme happen? All by himself? Is that what you believe?

The truth is, the president would probably never even be briefed on such a small land sale. And if it were included in existing law, it would be stuck in as a line item right in betwen liberal pork projects and the newest welfare handout guidelines. Unreal, the ignorance is mindboggling.

No, I don't think Shrub is smart enough to put two coherent sentences together, and he sure isn't smart enough to figure out how to sell off Federal land all by himself.

But he does surround himself with cronies who screw we the public every chance they get, and this is just one more example.

[digger51]

At last someone else who actually did their homework and not reacted from their gut. Well stated Tim. I actually liked your accounting take on the issue. If more of us would actually use this method the issue wouldnt be as inflamatory.

[KirkMcquest]

I'm not here to stir the pot. I just speak up on things that I know about or are important to me. As far as politics go, I don't stand on talking points, I stand for what's right and what's wrong as I see it(and I consider myself a good person, at least I try to be). Also, you have to weigh what people say on the scale of human nature. I can clog this sites servers with rediculous and uncalled for quotes from democrats(Hillary Clinton, Ray Nagen, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) from just this past year alone. Would you like to break down all those quotable quoters?

I love the way he starts back tracking here and tries to validate himself as a 'good person' when he sees the majority is against him. Who cares if your 'stiring the pot'? If you have an opinion, why don't you just stand behind it? Its irrelevant whether or not your a good person and no ones place here to judge.

By the way your completely off base in your beliefs. What's wrong with you?

[Almost There]

Lets throw them all out and start over with people who are only concerned with their little piece of the world. Maybe hikers should rule. After all they seem concerned only with their woods and not with the rest of the needs of society, at least if helping solve those needs involves touching their prescious lands. Bet this gets some ire up.

Talk about being a little inflamatory??? BTW I don't need to go into my room to play with myself!

I completely agree with what Tim has said, perhaps I oversimplified....but you certainly did as well!

[MOWGLI]

Digger & Almost There. Why do you two knuckleheads have to call each other names?

[KirkMcquest]

Digger & Almost There. Why do you two knuckleheads have to call each other names?

Yeah, name calling is wrong. It can also be hurtful

[Almost There]

Hey Digger!

I just realized you called me a complete moron....AWESOME!!!

[Almost There]

Kirk and Mowgs....Just think of them as terms of affection.

Wait....Did I just say that?!?