Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

James_R

we are 'the leading edge' I Share on HSO
  • Content count

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James_R

  • Rank
    Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family
  • Birthday 07/20/1978

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Northern, MN
  1. Holy smokes! What on earth happened to HSO? I haven't been here for 6 months and everybody's gone. Were these new changes meant to bring their page traffic down to nothing? I guess it worked.
  2. Wouldn't it be better if these mining companies did pay property taxes so the revenue would stay in the area instead of being collected and dispersed in St. Paul?
  3. We're really losing a lot of families up here due to lack of employment opportunities and it's creating a very lopsided demographic. Relegating the people of a large section of the state to busing tables and cleaning motel rooms just because a few metro-centric tourists believe that the mercury level of the lake they camp at one week a year might end up being slightly elevated seems shortsighted and selfish.
  4. Do whatever it is you do down in the cities. I don't dictate what strip malls you build down there or what massive SUVs you can or can't drive. The arrogance of some of these metro people is just amazing. Why are some of you people so obsessed with centralized control of the land facilitated by an army of bureaucrats in a state or federal capital hundreds or thousands of miles away? The same people who only "buy locally" have no problem with DC administering as much land as they can thousands of miles away much like the soviets did with their collective farm system.
  5. I really wish we could sell all this land up here in the BWCA back to individuals where it belongs. Right now it's just a few of us up against the feds and an army of urban outsiders who think that just because they come up here camping once every 5 years they should be able to tell us all how to live. The Forest service can drive their 1 ton trucks wherever they feel like and the campers can drive up the gunflint trail in their suburus on paved roads yet if I want to take my 4-wheeler out for a spin or use a 30hp outboard for fishing, I'm treated like a criminal by a group of hypocrites that don't even live near me. Many of these visitors believe that we exist up here solely to clean their hotel rooms and serve them meals in restaurants for minimum wage. The fact that a few of us residents might actually want to make a decent living through mining or logging offends a lot of outsiders. They think of this region as their own personal taxpayer provided vacation preserve.
  6. Some people would act irresponsible and not save for retirement. Part of living in a free country is the freedom to act foolishly without having force applied against you.
  7. Selling that land back to us citizens would allow those people the ability to purchase that land at fair market value to use as they see fit. There are a lot of recreational land owners whose property values are artificially inflated because their properties adjoin public land. To me that is nothing but a taxpayer provided subsidy to mostly wealthy people. If my remote 160 acre property has public land on 3 sides of it, I can sell it at a higher price thanks to all that taxpayer provided public land that wraps around my property.
  8. The greatest land assets to the people in this country are the parcels that are used in their most productive capacities. Unfortunately, government does not produce anything and we have 600 million acres of off-limits land being hoarded by the feds instead of in the hands of productive individuals. Instead of having people own this land, make a living on it and derive property tax revenue from it. The Feds cordon it off, employ an army of over-paid/tax payer funded bureaucrats to oversee it and then exempt themselves from the local property tax rolls.
  9. The only "smoke and mirrors" is coming from politicians and their older constituents who keep saying to the younger people that the program just needs to be tweaked a little. This is nothing but a massive wealth transfer scheme. It's failure has nothing to do with corporate boogeymen or free trade agreements. It is the product of decades of past, present and future recipients receiving more money than they contributed, fewer workers supporting more retirees, a lack of any real assets, and balance projections derived from future tax revenue estimates. When I hear people say that SS is unsustainable I get the impression that they know what the truth is but they don't think they should have to make any meaningful sacrifices.
  10. In order for Social Security to redeem those securities; the treasury department needs to take funds out of the treasury. Treasury funds come from tax revenue. These "assets" are nothing more than diverted tax revenues paid by future income earners on top of their present SS payroll deductions.
  11. Except 15-20 years ago the program was in much better shape and the worker/recipient ratio was much higher. It's ok though. All that matters is that the boomers get their money. You weren't whining about it 20 years ago because you never had to deal with the reality of actually having to drastically raise taxes to pay off all of those IOUs that will need to be redeemed shortly to keep the program going.
  12. The problem that we're going to have real soon is when the 20 and 30 somethings begin to finally understand that the SS retirements that they are funding now through their payroll deductions will not be there for them in 30-40 years. In all reality they are going to receive 50 cents on the dollar in order to fund their parents retirements now.
  13. The only way to determine the actual market value of the land, and to ensure that it is used most productively, is to privatize it immediately. The feds (or Nevada, depending on the scenario) should auction off the lands in question, and if the Bundy family can come up with the capital to buy those lands, great. If they cannot, the ranch will have to lease lands from the new private owners or sell the cattle to someone else with sufficient resources.