Posted on 04/16/2014 6:40:35 PM PDT by BenLurkin
If the budget would be balanced by selling off the huge swaths of Federal land -- why not do it?
It’s not going to happen. Commies/fascists at all levels of government and in government-linked businesses might as well prepare for unemployment and pension haircuts. That will happen. Money doesn’t grow on trees. See Greece and other nations that have defaulted. The formerly high-riding bureaucrats and their associates are the rioting zombies.
“Under our current monetary system it is Impossible to Pay Off the Debt,”
Under our current monetary system, money IS debt. Nearly all of it is fractional-reserve overlending, and the Federal Reserve playing the game of $0 = -$1 + $1. Pay off the debt, and there is very little cash remaining (about $2-3T, that’s $10,000 per person).
too bad no one told them to get it in writing, and to retain counsel to look after their interests before the
various governments who took over their lands..
Whomever owns our nations secured debt owns the federal land. Egg rolls anyone?
My older kid is there with her husband and they love it. It’s like night and day better than 29 Palms.
“The feds control FAR too much real estate. ....sell...and make it productive.”
Like I said before, fix the dam govey entities before we hand it over to others. The feds are a prime example of how certain people really screw things up. That would be no different if selling 1 million acres to some big company or country from which to make a profit. It would likely still be screwed up!
Having specific vast portions of land just sitting for the beauty, enjoyment, and posterity is fine with me. For example, beautiful mountains do not need be chopped up for ski slopes (and I like to ski), chalets, and all that crap, so people can make a buck. The beauty is natural and should stay that way. Our national parks are no different. Leave em alone.
As you must know by now, Dingy Harry purportedly wants to make Bundy’s land productive, with a solar project. This would be a prime example of why we do not just hand over land for “production”.
Will it be sold to the highest bidder?
In that case, foreigners will always outbid Americans.
Think of the strategic value to a foreign country if it owned a piece of America.
>>> Question: How much are these huge swaths land worth (that haven’t been sold yet)
No telling. You could use traditional real estate procedures for current trends, and come up with a per-acre cost... but seems to me it should cost a LOT more when selling in bulk like that... which I don’t think is a good idea anyway.
My guess is that if we sold ALL federal lands for premium prices to pay off the debt, we would be doing really really good if we paid off 1/4 of it. Thats how bad a shape we are in.
I wish more people understood this.
China owns only about 8% of the US debt. They buy the bonds at auction like anyone else and they receive no promises of any collateral when they do so.
What they are theoretically worth now and what they would be worth if they came up for sale on the open market could be very different.
Stop and think what would happen to real estate values if lots of formerly protected Federal land became available for private development. It could literally destroy private property values in many rural areas and crush the real estate markets.
Flooding the market with millions of acres of land even over years, would be a very bad idea. It sounds counterintuitive but these protected lands actually increase private property values in many states (supply & demand).
I am not saying that the Federal Government should own all this land but any divestment needs to be carefully thought out and the ramifications need to be carefully considered. This could be a perfect example of “be careful what you wish for”.
You are acting out of emotion. Please do some research before you post.
For starters, I think any sale of public lands should be at public auction, with advance notice to all interested parties in the area. This would cut out the crony socialism and crony capitalism.
Also, there are water rights, grazing rights, mineral rights etc. for many properties in the West. It is RARE to have “clear title” to ALL land rights in many areas of the West. Those “vested interests” or vested rights would attach to the property of course, regardless of ownership, unless and until the mineral rights or grazing rights or water rights were also sold.
The Feds own FAR too much land. The Feds control FAR too much land.
Exactly correct! The Resolution of 1780, the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood.
These videos are for people who don't yet understand why Cliven Bundy broke his agreement with the BLM. They show why the BLM should not even be managing the public lands of Nevada or any other state.
1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution,/a>
To understand you have to think like a billionaire, a financial elite.
They make sure the Fed govt owns land to hold it aside.
Later, when the elites, or future elites, have a project to use the land for, it can be sweethearted to them for a cheap price.
If “their” Fedgov did not own the land, it would start getting bought up and used.
Oh my !
What if there were 2,000 Bundy families with ranches all over those few hundred thousand acres ?
There weren’t.
Just one Bundy on a few thousand acres, and hundreds of thousands of acres of “gubmint” land.
You and I could approach any CongressCritter(tm), if we had enough money, and they’d be open to doing a land deal with us.
It’s like a “community chest” for elite crooks.
Thank you.
Thank you, but you assume far too much. Yes, the govey owns and controls far too much. No argument there. In order to prevent crony this and crony that is no simple step. This is federal land now to be sold. If you think certain segments of society could be prohibited from participating in the bidding process, you may be short sighted. Moreover, if you think that even if only “locals” or people “in the area” were in the bidding, and that would prevent backers from backing a “local”, that would be shortsighted. Still further, what are the long term covenances, if any. Do you think the local buyer would be restricted from selling to a developer at a later time? That tends to go against title to land.
Agree that the different rights may be severed in some way. As you see, I am very cynical of those who would put this in motion, set up the rules, and actually be buyers. But far too many ways to scam the system.
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.