# Public lands=funding for infrastructure plan?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Well as many of you know Trump wants to spend over a trillion dollars on infrastructure. Scroll down to the video on this link and listen from about 2 minutes on. No more "transfer" folks, just blatantly saying they want to sale them. Trumps gonna have immense pressure on him over the next 4 years, hope he can hold up to the federal land promises he made because the GOP is going to go on full fledged attack at some point. What these out of touch "conservatives"don't seem to understand is it's not just Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon we don't want sold, it's none of our public lands and the next 4 years will be an amazing opportunity to either shout down politicians who choose to say they want to sell our land, or be the generation that let them go.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/...timulus-even-if-its-only-50-percent-paid-for/


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Didn't really hear "sell them". What I heard is putting it into private sector hands to develop and/or harvest energy (mineral) resources. I don't think that necessarily means to sell it out right but to allow private sector commerce, i.e. business, to use those resources to generate funds for government use via leasing rather than tax the heck out of us.

But now it brings us to the ever controversial topic of "drill, baby, drill" that so many are against because it takes away from the romanticism of the outdoor experience. Everybody likes their toys and recreation, just not willing to pay the piper for the source that makes it all possible. So, we will be faced with very high gasoline prices in the long term when current oil supplies deplete domestically and when OPEC decides to tighten the thumb screws to us. It won't matter how pristine the great outdoors are with federal protection of lands because you won't be able to 1) afford to travel there and/or 2) there won't be enough fuel for luxury use to travel there.

Also, natural gas to heat your house during cold winter months is a very, very good thing as well...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

HDE it is pretty clear what he said. He said "we aren't looking to sell off Yellowstone National Park, I'm talking about the millions of acres we have in western states that's not on the tax roles"..... How exactly do you think you get it on the tax roles HDE? Yes he goes into selling mineral nights but his first point is we have these millions of acres of (BLM land) federal land that's just land and it needs to be put in private sector hands. The mineral rights are already being sold, whether you like it or not his initial point was that much of it needs to be sold to the private sector because "it's just land" it's not benefitting us in any way is it? As for your further comments, I have no problem with sustainable and wise development on federal lands for mineral resources, but that doesn't mean we go full boar drilling and using every bit we can.
As for you LostLouisianian, glad to see you can parrot your conservative radio news people with your childish banter. Nothing says liberal like a trillion dollar stimulus infrastructure plan. Yeah in many ways.... you do still have a liberal in the White House "believe me".


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

edited


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Sent you a PM, better end on that note in the thread.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Ad valorem tax on the product made and what equipment or property is sitting there to produce minerals. Also added to the acreage used to harvest the minerals as in "rent" payment. There is a gov't fee for every mscf and bbl produced.


----------

