Why make trillions when we could make...billions?
-Dr. Evil
Posted on 12/29/2012 4:52:33 PM PST by Kaslin
When families face a budget crunch, they have but a few options -- spend less, make more or starting selling stuff.
So why doesn't the federal government do the same?
Given the current state of the country's finances, many are wondering if it is time for the federal government to sell what it doesn't need -- basically, hold a yard sale.
The federal government is sitting on billions in assets that are either sluggish or just dead weight. That includes federal land, buildings and other structures. Two years ago, President Obama's deficit commission identified 64,000 buildings and structures that it deemed excessive, underutilized or vacant and recommended should be sold.
"So instead of raising taxes, which takes money out of the economy and lowers economic activity, we ought to be looking at selling federal assets," said Myron Ebell, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They could start with canceling the construction of the new DHS building and sell the land.
Oooohhh, billions.
That will make a mighty tiny dent in the deficit, for one year.
We are over sixteen thousand billion dollars in debt. A few billion wont make much of a difference one way or another.......
Get rid of the agencies of largesse first, then liquidate the hard assets. Starve the beast. Stop the spending death spiral.
They like to lease instead of sell. My feeling is that any land within a state belongs to that state and profits should go to that state....not the Federal Government. The Federal Government is not supposed to be in business.
How much could the government save by turning the National Parks over to a company that knows something about hospitality? Disney might be better able to take care of them than the government, and they wouldn’t be held hostage every other year during budget negotiations.
And it begins with a sleight of hand by the criminal bastard boy regime ... eventually, those holding US debt will be traded resource rich lands to pay for the criminal enterprise schemes.
Property is not a recurring fiscal drain - personnel is.
First step - no hiring in any federal position, even in vacant existing positions. Critical positions can only be filled by lateral transfers.
When the federal workforce is reduced by 50%, then we’ll talks about property disbursements.
An asset is a serious source of hydrocarbon fuels, or uranium, or rare earths, or natural gas, or ...... grass for cows to eat.
The US government in its ownership of 30% of the total land area of the United States owns almost 100% of all potential geothermal resources as well. But those properties are worth hundreds of trillions in extractable resources ~ over time.
Let's set up a sense of scale for this;
Old Buildings 68,000 of 'em each worth $100,000 = $6,800,000,000 MAX
Green River Formation 1 ea worth $100,000,000,000,000 = $100,000,000,000,000.
Now that's an ASSET
With this admin, I’m sure an equitable distribution of government properties would occur. We’d just have to wait for the Redistribution Agency to get set up with a staff of maybe 4700 people, in leased facilities in Wash DC. There, people connected with the administration could feast on yet another corpse of gov’t largesse. And the money received for selling these things, why, that could go into contraceptive programs for white people. What’s not to like?
But, anyway, the housing was basic as could be: concrete shells in high rise apartment buildings with plumbing, wiring and gas service. You had to buy your own flooring, light fixtures, furniture, but the payment to own was just enough more attractive than the payment to rent that many people did exactly that.
Remember what happened in Japan in the 1980s? Even many of those on the lowest end of the income scale opted to own. Some older public housing due for demolition within a few years still sold. Example: older couple five years from retirement and planning to move back to the country wanted something low cost and basic. Ditto for a couple of 20 something office ladies who spent most of their free time partying or traveling.
Privatization worked so well that an economic boom was fueled selling inexpensive furnishings and up to make these little rabbit hutches comfortable. The first company which I worked for in Japan saw excellent growth in this market and the market just above, namely young couples moving out into their first homes or into more luxurious apartments because they were able to get a start in these low cost affairs.
A lot of this was, of course, made possible by a strong employment market. But even then, the pride of ownership thing (even if was only going to be for five years) did wonders for how people took care of their housing.
But, anyway, the housing was basic as could be: concrete shells in high rise apartment buildings with plumbing, wiring and gas service. You had to buy your own flooring, light fixtures, furniture, but the payment to own was just enough more attractive than the payment to rent that many people did exactly that.
Remember what happened in Japan in the 1980s? Even many of those on the lowest end of the income scale opted to own. Some older public housing due for demolition within a few years still sold. Example: older couple five years from retirement and planning to move back to the country wanted something low cost and basic. Ditto for a couple of 20 something office ladies who spent most of their free time partying or traveling.
Privatization worked so well that an economic boom was fueled selling inexpensive furnishings and up to make these little rabbit hutches comfortable. The first company which I worked for in Japan saw excellent growth in this market and the market just above, namely young couples moving out into their first homes or into more luxurious apartments because they were able to get a start in these low cost affairs.
A lot of this was, of course, made possible by a strong employment market. But even then, the pride of ownership thing (even if was only going to be for five years) did wonders for how people took care of their housing.
Um, the US owns more than half of the land west of the Mississippi... and much of that is set off as “national parkland” to prevent development of minerals under the ground. Those resources alone would be worth Trillions, and would make a huge dent in the debt.
Wouldn’t do any good. They’d just spend it, plus some. And if you legislated that money from selling assets would have to go to paying down the debt, that would just free up other money to spend. Similar to all that lottery and tobacco-settlement money the states got.
the dems want to sell Alaska and any other large, resource rich, land they can
it’s about looting the wealth of the nation... be it monetary (cash in debt or gold directly) or in holdings
Americathon.:)
CC
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.