Posted on 04/03/2016 2:28:33 PM PDT by drewh
As president, Donald Trump would sell off $16 trillion worth of U.S. government assets in order to fulfill his pledge to eliminate the national debt in eight years, senior adviser with the campaign Barry Bennett said.
"The United States government owns more real estate than anybody else, more land than anybody else, more energy than anybody else," Bennett told Chris Jansing Sunday on MSNBC. "We can get rid of government buildings we're not using, we can extract the energy from government lands, we can do all kinds of things to extract value from the assets that we hold."
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he would get rid of the $19 trillion national debt "over a period of eight years." The article noted that most economists would consider Trump's proposal impossible, as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
However, when pressed on whether the United States could sell off $16 trillion worth of assets, Bennett responded affirmatively on Sunday.
"Oh, my goodness," he said. "Do you know how much land we have? You know how much oil is off shore? And in government lands? Easily."
The federal government's assets totaled $3.2 trillion as of September 2015, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, that does not include include stewardship assets or natural resources.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Slow down, pardner. Thomas Jefferson had the U.S. Treasury write Napoleon a check for the Louisiana Purchase. Andrew Johnson had the Treasury write the czar a check for Alaska. The feds bought Florida from Spain the same way, and the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico. These lands were acquired by the federal government, with federal money. The states that were later carved out of them, in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, or organized out of them, in the case of Florida and Alaska, did not yet exist. Ignoring the Native Americans, of course, these lands were the sovereign territory of Spain, Mexico, or Russia before they were U.S. territory, and they were federal lands long before the states came into being. What is there to verify?
My thoughts exactly. *sigh*
Well, my accounting degree argues otherwise, but I’ll let it go... ;-)
I did state in my previous post that “debt” as quantified in Government entity accounting is different than GAAP accounting.
My original point I think still has some merit — banks have gotten a pretty sweet deal over the last century. They are the ones that own most of the currently issued debt instruments. I would like to see something that makes the government debt something not owed to businesses that have skated with an advantageous tax system for years, but something that can be used as a payment in kind for other people the government has agreed to pay money to — federal pensioners, veterans, social security recipients.
When I saw the posts from you and arrogantsob yesterday, I started doing some scratching. Regardless that the feds originally bought land that has now been divided into states, the question of who controls land in the USA has evidently been an issue since before the Constitution was ratified. And problems haven’t been resolved, partly because of voter apathy imo.
If you haven’t seen the 30 min. video by the late(?) Steven Pratt, please have a look. It is not conclusive imo, but does give a good idea of the ongoing conflicts of interest in state versus federal lands.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution
Constitutional amendment
Not that I know of?
Hamilton was the most brilliant of the Founders and saw clearly the value of a National Bank, his argument for its constitutionality was as remarkable as his writings in the Federalist. His knowledge of law and the constitution was unsurpassed.
As to your absurd Jeffersonian rant about his “love” of money, Hamilton could have been one of the richest men in America had he not given years of his life to government service. He LOVED the Union, not money and, after Jefferson’s vice president killed him, was found to be in debt. His integrity was scrupulous.
The Democrat-Republican party was founded to thwart Hamilton, a linear ancestor of our Democrat party.
Before his debt scheme and creation of the Bank we had no specie and therefore NO MONEY to speak of. Creating a National Bank allowed the government to wield powers specified within the constitution.
His financial program was so significant to our development that his deadly enemy, Jefferson, who had campaigned against it using LEFTIST arguments, left it in place during his presidency.
When stupider politicians took over later and refused to re-charter the Bank, it did not take long to realize that a huge mistake had been made and financing the War of 1812 made immensely more difficult.
Jackson’s disastrous decision not to re-charter the 2d Bank provoked a decade long recession, it took the discovery of gold in California to get the US out of it.
You also don’t know what you are talking about wrt to the Constitutional Convention. The greatest reason that the CC was held AT ALL was to regulate interstate commerce and the document did not give the fed gov power to regulate intrastate commerce. There is nothing in Article 1 giving Congress such power. In fact, interference with the intrastate commerce of slavery was proscribed for 20 yrs.
Your credibility is destroyed by your insult of Washington.
For good reason Washington considered Hamilton the son he never had and loved and respected him above all others; he was NOT his puppet. No matter what the Jeffersonians claimed, Washington was NO ONE’s puppet.
Regardless if a national bank was a good idea, It remains that his fellow delegates at the Constitutional Convention had dropped the idea. So Hamilton was one of the first state sovereignty-ignoring activists to push the federal government to overstep its constitutionally limited powers.
Your ridiculous analogy just shows you don’t know what you are talking about.
Better would be the boat is being dragged down by an anchor. Bailing out the boat won’t change the effect of that anchor. Or make it any lighter.
No one is arguing about another debt arising. Irrelevant to this discussion.
I happily admit it when wrong but in this case no such admission is necessary.
One means of increasing federal revenues is to put this land in private hands allowing ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. This is a terrific idea with little downside other than making other politicians look like clueless dummies.
Let’s pretend that one method of doing this is to trade land for bonds. What would be the impact?
1- a scramble for bonds to swap;
2 - an increase in the value of those bonds producing;
3- a decline in the interest rate producing;
4 - more economic activity producing;
5- more taxes from that activity and
6- more JOBS from the projects undertaken on that land.
More federal revenue means less pressure on cutting spending which for politicians is next to impossible.
Totally false in every word.
Try again and this time make sense.
However, it should be stressed that Hamilton clearly was not constrained by the state first concerns which forced the convention in the first place. He knew that the states had to be curbed in order for the Union to survive. And the constitution thankfully did that.
States were not allowed to coin their own money so there was little sovereignty involved. States were not allowed to conduct their own foreign policy, to interfere with the slave trade, to have compacts with each other and all the other things forbidden in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.
The only sovereignty left to states was the power to control matters within the state. Any dispute or conflict between states was to be settled within federal courts.
Hamilton was the greatest political thinker the Western Hemisphere ever produced and was critical to the survival of the Republic. His efforts to create a strong, independent nation were resisted every step of the way by the insidious, conniving Jefferson. Had HE been president our country would have been MUCH better off.
“Well, my accounting degree argues otherwise, but I’ll let it go... ;-)”
I would appreciate it if you can show me how I am incorrect, I have no interest in spreading incorrect information/speculation.
So let’s do both...sell stuff the govt doesn’t need, put people back to work, cut departments/welfare. If as you say that latter cuts 10 trillion, then maybe they don’t have to sell as much of the former.
Sounds like a plan. “:^)
In the case of the government, this is the previously posted shortfalls from prior years operations. If the government kept its books the same way a business did, it would be shown as "negative equity" from revenue being smaller than expenses and that they borrowed money (by issuing bonds) to cover.
Not payments from current revenues.
By law and by annual budget, there are certain payments the government makes that are required in every fiscal year. Any shortfall is covered by issuance of new debt. Again, if the government kept books according to GAAP, the country has operated at a "loss" in my lifetime and that accumulated negative equity; that which is already been borrowed, is called the national debt. As you said, payments from current revenues are much different than the total outstanding bonds and notes issued by the federal government.
There are more to LIABILITIES than debt.
Not according to GAAS -- the government records what it will pay in the current fiscal year, with small carryovers for current operations, based upon the current budget. What a business would call "long term liabilities", "contractually obligated payments", or "contingent liabilities" are not part of government accounting.
You are confusing the two.
I don't believe that I am. I have seen figures based upon current Social Security, Medicare, Federal Pension, and Veterans benefits as indicating a $95 Trillion dollar LIABILITY in addition to the $18 Trillion already issued debt, and whatever the shortfall will be for FY 2016. The government does not have to record that $95 Trillion though -- it is essentially, an off book liability. Which is what they sent the Enron guys to jail for...
As a related thought, I wonder how much change people have in home piggy banks in the US as a grand total of the nation? How much change would be found in couches and under car seats and at the bottom of purses? The reason why I’m asking s because if a “donate the loose change” fund was started to help pay the national debt, I’m thinking there are hundreds of billions laying around not doing anything. A quarter here and a dime there. My wife found several dollars worth in about 5 old purses she had laying around. How many times is that same situation repeated through out the nation. Services in kind can be worth money intrinsically. An otherwise decent person unemployed, but on some sort of government benefits could do needed work that otherwise the government would have to pay contractors for. There are lots of ways that the national debt could be reduced without throwing out the whole safety net(certainly it would have to be fixed) but it would take leadership and a citizenry who could be motivated to believe that they have a nation worth saving!
People could volunteer time by the hour for worthwhile government activities(not in the way communists would demand it) which could then be computed as a hourly wage which was then applied against the debt. This would be voluntary but if the people could be so motivated by a decent trustworthy leadership, we could get everything paid off in short order. We can save this country but can we muster the national will to do so? The accumulated private wealth inclusive of hidden moneys, precious metals, valuable tools, ect that just “sit there” must be staggering...many times the national debt! Yet I’m not talking about confiscation, but rather a sort of private/public voluntary asset fire sale as a means of facing up to our reality as a nation of spendthifts. Personal time donated to help pay off the debt can be also be computed into the mix as well! I know there are flaws in my thinking but I’m trying to put forth the notion that our problems are fixable....that we can step away from the precipice if we are willing!
“Does anyone have any idea how much revenue would be generated by putting 40 million plus people back to work?”
How much would we get if folks who were on sometype of assistance could do necessary jobs or maintenance that governments have no money to pay regular employees to do?
I know some localities allow folks to work off their property taxes that way, exchanging tax liability for needed work and computing the “virtual” hourly wage then applying it against their taxes. I think a volunteer system could be set up in the same way to reduce our national accumulated debts. I stress volunteer because such a system could be used to enslave people leading to revolt!
There have to be jobs to be taken and some may have skills but have some limits related to disability. I agree with you in principle but some have not been working for so long that potential employers won’t even consider them! I was speaking in terms of an emergency type recovery situation debt repayment plan anyway...the longer term strategies as you advocate will take longer to phase in. I agree with you but it wasn’t the point I was trying to stress! If we go bankrupt, there won’t be any sort of economy that will support businesses at all! No money!
If I drop below a certain level, I will have to bring a border inside my home. It might get to the point I would need two of them.
If I can consider something like that, they can too.
$10x22x8 = $1760. Less taxes, that’d be around $1410.
If you’re a husband and wife, that’s $2420 household income.
Bring in a border or two for $500 each, you’re talking $2920 to $3420 a month.
You’d be surprised how fast someone can qualify for a $10 an hour job, if it means they eat or don’t eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.