Now you are just being stupid.
Look at it this way...
You are in boat. There are holes in the bottom and water is pouring in. You bail all the water out and think that fixes the problem.
See the fatal flaw in the logic you are employing? Or would that require you to suck it up and admit to being wrong. Or is that some kind of unforgivable betrayal of Internet macho ethos...
We cannot keep spending at the rate we are spending and EVER cure the debt problem. One CAUSES the other. Can we pay down the debt? Yes. Once. But then the bills start racking up again...
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.