Posted on 03/12/2017 5:06:16 AM PDT by vooch
Federal Gov't owns about 750 million acres of land ( excluding Alaska ). Much of this land is low value, but a surprising amount is in high value areas.
If the Feds sold off 1/2 their property at average price of $50,000 per acre that would generate about $20 trillion. This would be enough to retire the entire national debt.
What are Freepers thoughts' ?
My friends in Iowa pay $10k an acre for farm land. Meanwhile, farmland in west central Michigan is $2k. Ranchland, between Billings and Bozeman can go for $20k.
The land is being used as collateral on the trillions of T-bills purchased by the Chinese. So someday when we default on the notes, the Chinese get the land.
It depends on who buys it for what use
Letting Saudi or China buy huge chunks of America and building internal walls. Not in our interests
I’ve read there’s EIGHTY TRILLION of oil on them there lands.
Would it be better to sell the oil?
I dont know the economics involved.
No way would you average 50k/acre.
I thought of this, but in discussing this with a friend I respect, he pointed out most of this land isn’t Federal, it is land that was supposed to be given to the states but wasn’t.
He argued it wasn’t theirs to sell in many cases.
So, give this land to the states and at the same time end funding of some social net programs for these states? California?
I imagine that would balance the budget too.
The Constitution *authorizes* the USPS—it does not *mandate* it. There is a huge difference!
The USPS is an expensive anachronism and its time has come and gone. Cut the strings.
No. It should go to the states.
The resulting economic boom would be incredible. The federal government should own no land except that needed for military, and essential government services. I would also divest our national parks to each state that is willing to control and run them.
The Feds would have to make a deal with the states for the sale. Like someone typed, the Feds are not actually supposed to own all this land. However, I have had a plan that would save and enhance social security with just a portion of this land. It would be used to “jump start” the personal social security accounts. There would be two accounts. One personal and one the same as now. Each year 5% of the personal account would be used for the owners current social security payout. If that does not reach the amount set by the current system, then the current social security system would make up the difference. Thus negating short term downturn effects. If we had done this several years ago, we could have used the “surplus” to jump start it. Also a portion of the payroll deductions would go into the personal account. The personal account would be willable.
...........as someone who has been involved in negotiating large debts on real estate deals the past 44 years, I am against your very valid “idea” for at least 5 reasons, in no particular order, to wit:
1. I don’t think the math is right.
2. There are huge offsets to much of this debt which for the unknowing means vast amounts of it can just be negotiated into oblivion/evaporation. I once settled ten million for 80k just as one example.
3. I’m against any National Park being sold that was created before Bush 41.
4. There’s borrower’s and there are creditor’s. BOTH ASSUME the risk when they close the deal!
5. China debt and Japan debt can be blended into trade deals almost painlessly.
Because China and Saudi Arabia doesn’t own enough of America already.
The liberals would have a fit if the Grand Canyon was renamed ‘The Grand Canyon, presented by ExxonMobil’. Wait a second, liberals do have fits if conservatives wake up every day!
default ?
You are ignoring supply and demand. The resulting glut of real estate (acreage) from this Federal land coming onto the market would destroy private property values in many parts of the west.
Selling off some Federal land might be a good idea but the program would have to do it over many decades to absorb the land stock and preserve demand. Also don, t be surprised if the biggest, choicest parcels are all bought by banks, foreign governments or investment companies. They have the funding, know how andinfluence to get in on the ground floor before the rest of us. The average person will end up fighting for the least desirable scraps.
I would say that your projected average valuation of $1-2,000 or less is far more accurate than the suggested $50k per acre.
I would say that your projected average valuation of $1-2,000 or less is far more accurate than the suggested $50k per acre.
Other benefits would be the ability to slash much of the Department Of Agriculture and Department Of The Interior’s budgets. Combined they are over a hundred and fifty billion a year.
Correct. No different than a person selling their house to pay off credit card debt.
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.