Posted on 04/03/2016 2:28:33 PM PDT by drewh
As president, Donald Trump would sell off $16 trillion worth of U.S. government assets in order to fulfill his pledge to eliminate the national debt in eight years, senior adviser with the campaign Barry Bennett said.
"The United States government owns more real estate than anybody else, more land than anybody else, more energy than anybody else," Bennett told Chris Jansing Sunday on MSNBC. "We can get rid of government buildings we're not using, we can extract the energy from government lands, we can do all kinds of things to extract value from the assets that we hold."
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he would get rid of the $19 trillion national debt "over a period of eight years." The article noted that most economists would consider Trump's proposal impossible, as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
However, when pressed on whether the United States could sell off $16 trillion worth of assets, Bennett responded affirmatively on Sunday.
"Oh, my goodness," he said. "Do you know how much land we have? You know how much oil is off shore? And in government lands? Easily."
The federal government's assets totaled $3.2 trillion as of September 2015, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, that does not include include stewardship assets or natural resources.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
So, you the people can go and use federal (your) lands without restriction? You know, like hunting, fishing, four wheeling, grazing your cattle, well, everywhere but where DiFi has signs up that says you can’t fish, hunt, drive around, and oh yeah, we catch your cattle, we shoot them, and you, with snipers armed to the teeth.
Reducing the deficit or federal spending will not impact the debt unless the reduction in spending is devoted to retiring the debt, which it WON’T be.
While both are noble goals and should be sought what they really impact is the GROWTH of the debt not its elimination.
Even cuts in spending and deficits will not reduce the debt one dollar - only the retirement of the bonds would do that.
Now it is possible that running a surplus would allow those funds to retire debt - but pigs will fly outta my butt before that happens.
“What land does the Federal Government truly own? I’ll concede Federal Buildings, and the land beneath military bases; but that’s it. Otherwise the land truly belongs to the States...and not the Federal Government.”
With the exception of the original thirteen states ALL the rest was obtained by the federal government which also CREATED the states. Land was either purchased with federal funds, conquered by federal forces or granted by some of the original 13.
Your statement is incorrect since the 37 states had NOTHING often not even a name. Unless the federal government granted land to a state when it was established, it had nothing after incorporation but a name. Possible exceptions would be private gifts of land or land purchased from tribes acknowledged by the fedgov to be theirs but that would have been rare.
Federal “ownership” is merely ownership as trustee for the People. It effectiveness can be rightfully questioned but not the fact that it is charged with being a trustee.
Nobody said that
Using bonds to purchase federal land is a brilliant idea. If they are sold for cash, that cash must be devoted entirely to debt retirement.
We are talking about ACTUAL debt. Not payments from current revenues. There are more to LIABILITIES than debt. You are confusing the two.
Government unions cannot strike hence the greatest power for disruption is not in their arsenal. They are limited to specific functions and no real threat to anyone other than those paying dues.
“...what is to prevent them from using any way they choose.”
Hmmm, the same laws which prevent ANY owner from doing so.
If push came to shove we just confiscate the land and send them packing.
Of course, only a Trump would have the guts for that.
“Return the control of money to the US Treasury.”
Should we have a reincarnation of Alexander Hamilton that would be a good idea. Otherwise forget it.
You need to revue the history of where the demand for a federal reserve bank came from.
It was a demand of the Populist movement from the 1880s because the money supply was controlled by the big Eastern banks. When there was a run on them, they called in loans to the Western farmers and ranchers and even successful ones were crushed. Hence, the adamant opposition from those banks to having their power restricted. Treasury NEVER controlled the money supply other than carrying out Congressional mandates to buy more or less silver or gold. It was more controlled by random strikes of precious metals than by Treasury.
Most of those opposed to the Fed don’t know why it was created or what it really does. Or that it turns over all its profit to Treasury. In other words, it is taxed at 100% to the tune of 30+ billion a year.
bkmk
Yes, although you are leaving out the exceptions of Texas and Hawaii, both independent republics before joining the union. But your basic point is correct. What broke down in the late 19th century was the assumption that the feds would fairly quickly transfer lands in newly formed states to the states or individuals.
Good point but both Texas and Hawaii were either obtained through federal action or annexed directly. Texas was an independent republic because of the assistance of many Americans and conspiring and sub rosa manipulations by the US government.
Of course, a state cannot be a state without the consent of Congress.
Trump’s idea is far from new but a recycling of the ideas at the founding, good ideas.
You are excused.
For present purposes, however, the key is that the sovereign lands in both states were state lands, not federal. The federal government created all the other states after the first 13 out of federal lands. Texas and Hawaii were pre-existing jurisdictions in which the land was never federal to begin with.
As evidenced by the amount of blatant, constitution-ignoring corruption in the federal government today imo, basically everything that the federal government does and has ever done must now be questioned, including verifying the validity of federal ownership of land.
As a side note to land issues, note that one of the oldest cases of federal government corruption takes us back to the presidency of George Washington. In that case Alexander Hamilton ignored the decision of his fellow delegates at the Constitutional Convention to not allow Congress to have the power to regulate INTRAstate banking. Hamiltion loved the smell of money and cried on the shoulder of his Army buddy George Washington to sign a bill to establish a national bank and Washington caved and signed the bill.
So when you wake up and large parts of the West are owned by foreign powers, you would fine with that?
Stop and think about that.
Huh?
If you want a response from me, put it up here on the open forum. I don’t do PM’s.
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...
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.