Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time for a yard sale? Selling excess property could net government billions
Fox News.com ^ | December 28, 2012 | William LaJeunesse

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/29/2012 4:52:37 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They could start with canceling the construction of the new DHS building and sell the land.


2 posted on 12/29/2012 4:55:29 PM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Oooohhh, billions.

That will make a mighty tiny dent in the deficit, for one year.


3 posted on 12/29/2012 4:55:54 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Oh Yeah, ... Start with section 8 housing real estate.
4 posted on 12/29/2012 4:56:56 PM PST by Musketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We are over sixteen thousand billion dollars in debt. A few billion wont make much of a difference one way or another.......


5 posted on 12/29/2012 4:59:30 PM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Get rid of the agencies of largesse first, then liquidate the hard assets. Starve the beast. Stop the spending death spiral.


6 posted on 12/29/2012 5:00:06 PM PST by TADSLOS (I took extra credit at the School of Hard Knocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30


Why make trillions when we could make...billions?
-Dr. Evil
7 posted on 12/29/2012 5:00:06 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


8 posted on 12/29/2012 5:04:08 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


9 posted on 12/29/2012 5:10:02 PM PST by jmcenanly ("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


10 posted on 12/29/2012 5:15:13 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Sell Hawaii.
11 posted on 12/29/2012 5:16:33 PM PST by oldbrowser (They are marxists, don't call them democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


12 posted on 12/29/2012 6:12:42 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
An old empty building may well NOT be an asset. Cleared of the rubble the site might be worth something.

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

13 posted on 12/29/2012 6:21:36 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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?


14 posted on 12/29/2012 6:32:41 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (This stuff we're going through now, this is nothing compared to the middle ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Musketeer
Actually, not as dumb as it sounds. Back in the 1980s, Japan privatized large parcels of their section 8 housing equivalent. Of course, in Japan low income housing is exactly that: housing for low income people. Not housing for criminals, drug dealers and sleep-over sheds for feral males of a certain minority.

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.

15 posted on 12/29/2012 6:43:51 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Musketeer
Actually, not as dumb as it sounds. Back in the 1980s, Japan privatized large parcels of their section 8 housing equivalent. Of course, in Japan low income housing is exactly that: housing for low income people. Not housing for criminals, drug dealers and sleep-over sheds for feral males of a certain minority.

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.

16 posted on 12/29/2012 6:44:25 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


17 posted on 12/29/2012 6:53:05 PM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


18 posted on 12/29/2012 6:56:17 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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


19 posted on 12/29/2012 7:39:50 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Americathon.:)

CC


20 posted on 12/29/2012 8:32:52 PM PST by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

All levels of gubmint should start selling land to American citizens.


21 posted on 12/29/2012 9:35:55 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (we)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama’s friends get first bid.

And there will be only one bid.


22 posted on 12/29/2012 11:12:48 PM PST by UnwashedPeasant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ll give ya 100 grand for Ellis Island


23 posted on 12/30/2012 3:21:15 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

I have a huge chest of Mardi Gras beads that i will trade for that nearby larger Island.


24 posted on 12/30/2012 3:54:04 AM PST by Einherjar ( Asking only workman's wages I come looking for a job But I get no offers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Einherjar

Manhatten?
You can have it.
Waaaaay too many crazies on you island there.


25 posted on 12/30/2012 4:01:03 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I would take your idea a step further. I believe that even the states should forego land ownership. Private property ownership is what distinguishes a free republic from all other forms of tyranny. The feds, the states, the counties and the townships/cities/etc. should not be in the business of competing with citizens for ownership of these assets. Period. End of story.


26 posted on 12/30/2012 7:10:55 AM PST by weeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: weeder
When the States own PROPERTY, it is owned by "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK" (FOR EXAMPLE). It may be parks, highways, armories, State Offices....

There's a big difference between States ownership and what/and how the Feds own and regulate property.

27 posted on 12/30/2012 9:59:27 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson