General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBrian Schweitzer was saying Welfare Cowboy's grazing fees were heavily Fed subsidized
On TV today (Ed Show?) Brian Schweitzer (I think that's who it was... one of those well known Dems from red-state west) was saying that federal grazing fees are 90% less than comparable private or state grazing fees.
If true, then the rancher was really complaining that his federal agricultural subsidy wasn't big enough.
Instead of giving you a 90% federal subsidy, we are supposed to give you 100% federal subsidy. Because government is the problem.
Also... check out his underlying thinking. Imagine the perfect political universe... a world that is RIGHT. And in that world he owns the grazing land. No "the people" or some shit... him personally.
He's taking HIS country back!
(What is it with these guys? IIRC, Tim McVeith's hatred of government started over a beef that his federal agricultural subsidy was too small.)
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)He would be out of business and looking for work, which he probably is not suitable to or capable of if it is any more demanding than slipping flyers under windshield wipers.
He is a welfare recipient, as dependent on government assistance for his living as any old AFDC client ever was....
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)when Reagan signed an executive order setting them by a formula. Its about $2.50/ head of cattle. Market rate is about $25/ head. Bundy was getting one hell of a deal, except he was looking for a freebie.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Yee Haw
handmade34
(22,756 posts)Bundy's thinking is pure capitalism... take what you can... fuck everybody else
B Calm
(28,762 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)have a looooooooonnnng history of mooching: railroads, loggers, miners, ranchers, farmers etc. etc. etc. None of them could survive without massive handouts from the government, including subsidies and investments in infrastructure.