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 ...
If I drop below a certain level, I will have to bring a border inside my home. It might get to the point I would need two of them.
If I can consider something like that, they can too.
$10x22x8 = $1760. Less taxes, that’d be around $1410.
If you’re a husband and wife, that’s $2820 household income.
Bring in a border or two for $500 each, you’re talking $3320 to $3820 a month.
You’d be surprised how fast someone can qualify for a $10 an hour job, if it means they eat or don’t eat.
I like the concept. However, the federal lands should be returned to the states who are the real owners.
Thanks for attempting to clarify those points, I don’t believe they change any of my conclusions since the books are not kept the same way in business and guberment.
In any case, President Trump will at least be familiar with the business methods of keeping accounts.
Perhaps the big Iceland/Panama scandal will reveal some of Arafat’s secrets. I think the 11 million papers they have go back as far as the 1970s.
“We the people have been robbed blind by the feds. We the people are used, abused and discarded in favor of illegals, malcontents, thugs and the royal elitists who think we’re not worth a pot to pee in.
The Constitution is under attack by the very people who have sworn to protect it.”
I agree. These people in DC consider themselves royalty not public servants. The government and its assets belong to the people, just as our debt belongs to us. We have had corrupt politician fools leading us down a not so rosy path. I get concerned when the politicians sell our assets because they usually do it as a deal for their cronies at bargain basement prices. The Russians made their oligarchs by corrupt pols selling off public assets.
Agreed - had we not allowed our jobs and economy to be outsourced to Japan, Mexico, China etc we’d not have the debt and deficits. The fools in DC operate on behalf of globalists not Americans.
Really? Do you honestly believe that?
Tell you what, Buttercup. If you really believe that we, the people, truly own any of the assets in the federal government’s control, try utilizing them sometime.
Well, do you own it? Or do the feds?
“I get concerned when the politicians sell our assets because they usually do it as a deal for their cronies at bargain basement prices. The Russians made their oligarchs by corrupt pols selling off public assets.”
Understood. Everything politicians do these days is to benefit themselves first, at our expense. Corruption is rampant. So every decision they make is suspect.
The first step has to reducing spending.
We dont the need more casinos.
Heck here in Tampa the Seminole gave 100 million dollars to the state. The state discovered some prime real Estate belonged to the indians. Instant casino.
The national debt will never disappear as long as the Federal Reserve Bank exists.
Get rid of those criminals and then you can get to fixing things for real.
You nor I individually own federal assets. Federal assets cannot be disbursed by any one individual, hence our representatives in congress. You people know this as well as I do, quit with the ridiculous premise. If you want to bust on me for criticizing your messiah, do so honestly.
I’m sure there are some of those FEMA trailers hangin’ around somewhere.
How about selling off the assets he’s gained through cronyism, corruption, and get graft....that’s bound to put a large dent in the totals.
the selling off of public lands in a short amount of time is a bad idea. the reason why is that it will lower the value of the land being sold because there are only so much liquid assets that can be spent on it. pBivate concerns all relatives to people like Senator Barbra boxer or other public employees will exploit the situation. they would move in to grab the land at cheap price and then sell it years later back to the government at a inflated price. I think the land not being used should always be for sale by the government but we should not have a liquidation sale. periodically the government should put up land for auction and sell it off slowly over time.
Regarding the controversy of Hamilton’s national bank, please consider the following excerpts from the wriings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison gnerally regarded as the father of the Constitution.
Note that in his official report to President Washington concerning the question of the constitutionality of Hamilton’s national bank, Jefferson had noted that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had discussed Ben Franklin’s suggestion to include canals in the mail roads clause of Section 8 of Article I1.8.7).
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
And since Jefferson had probably talked or corresponded with James Madison about the national bank discussion in conjunction with Franklin’s suggestion for canals, the following excerpt is taken from Madison’s journal of Constitutional Convention debates when Dr. Franklin first suggested canals.
”Docr. FRANKLIN moved to add after the words "post roads" Art I. Sect. 8. ”a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary”” - Madison Daily Journal
Again, Franklin’s idea for canals was dropped over concern that canals would give the feds an excuse to establish a bank which some of the delegates expressed concern that INTRAstate bankers didn’t want.
It is very relevant and my analogy still works better than yours. Sure, we can pay off the debt with Donald's method... Once. Once it's all sold off, then what? Without fixing the SPENDING as well, the debt comes right back. A fact you are deliberately being ignorant about...
Send the UN back to Europe—Bern or Brussels. We don’t need to support a clup for dictators.
Look at all the revenue generated by the change in tax brackets during the Reagan years. Problem is – more revenue has always led to more spending. Revenue is not the problem.
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.