Rancher Bundy vs 'Murika

[johno]

http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226377

Apparently, it's impossible to escape the reach of Uncle Sam. I don't see using "BLM land" or Bureau of Reclamation water as quite the same as "being on welfare."
If there is no distinction, then is someone who uses a US freeway in his work commute "on welfare?"

[Jonny Canuck]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226377 Apparently, it's impossible to escape the reach of Uncle Sam. I don't see using "BLM land" or Bureau of Reclamation water as quite the same as "being on welfare." If there is no distinction, then is someone who uses a US freeway in his work commute "on welfare?"

If you were using the freeway with untaxed gas then yes, it would amount to your definition of welfare. However, chances are, that a big chunk of your fuel bill goes to maintaining the roads we all use. Bundy has no problem accepting money or benefits from the govt (farm bill) but throws a fit when and refuses to pay for using land that isn't his.

[Turdacious]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226377 Apparently, it's impossible to escape the reach of Uncle Sam. I don't see using "BLM land" or Bureau of Reclamation water as quite the same as "being on welfare." If there is no distinction, then is someone who uses a US freeway in his work commute "on welfare?"

If you were using the freeway with untaxed gas then yes, it would amount to your definition of welfare. However, chances are, that a big chunk of your fuel bill goes to maintaining the roads we all use. Bundy has no problem accepting money or benefits from the govt (farm bill) but throws a fit when and refuses to pay for using land that isn't his.

It's not that simple. Land (and water) use and rights are traditionally the most contentious and important issue in domestic politics.

[dead man walking]

Most Lefties identify more with deadbeats than with workers. Especially crusty old workers who own land, ride horses, and fly the US flag. That smacks of too much tradition & independence, especially if guns are worn. Lefties favor dependents who grovel and are subservient*.



*However, Lefties admire uppityness in the destruction of US tradition, capitalism, individualism, or adulthood.

this strikes me as a gross oversimplification, the creation of a strawman who is easy to dislike and batter.

you next post makes sense to me:

Apparently, it's impossible to escape the reach of Uncle Sam. I don't see using "BLM land" or Bureau of Reclamation water as quite the same as "being on welfare."
If there is no distinction, then is someone who uses a US freeway in his work commute "on welfare?"

as you say, unless you are the unabomber you are woven into the fabric of society (and even he used the u.s. mail). the govt confers benefits to all of us in a variety of ways--tax credits, direct payments, loans, infrastructure, etc. The govt support should advance the broad interests of society as well as those of the particular beneficiary. bundy gets relatively low-cost grazing land. society gets food as lower cost than would otherwise be the case. that's a good deal for all, as long as bundy pays.

as you suggest, welfare for the indigent is different from a tax credit to a major energy company or a taxpayer funded stadium for the billionaire owner of a sports team. in my view, the rich guys get the better deals from the govt. hence, i am less troubled by funding for the poor (particulary if it feeds children) than i am by cash for fat cats.

that is all