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.
Glenn Kessler, who writes the Post's Fact Checker column, deemed the plan "nonsensical" and gave it "Four Pinocchios." Kessler assessed that even if Trump were to eliminate every government function and shut down every Cabinet agency, he would still be short $16 trillion.
"We regret we have only Four Pinocchios to give for this whopper," Kessler said. "Trump is insulting the intelligence of Americans for making such a claim in the first place."
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.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-unusual-plan-lower-national-debt-sell-government-n549946
>>69816350
it would help if you gave a first hand source for his plans, not just what people say about it
This should appeal to Libertarians and hardcore conservatives.
This is just a continuation of:
>>69809129
Is this a good idea or bad one?
what will the value of the land be? And can private citizens buy it? Anyone know?
>progressives come out of the woodwork and tell us why valuable (yet misused) assets shouldn't be sold to the private sector to create jobs and generate revenue
>>69816655
It makes him more popular with conservatives who want the govt to sell off chunks of lang like in Nevada.
>>69816655
Bad idea. Selling off national assets to pay off national debt has never worked well for any country. Ever. It has always ended badly. It should not happen here.
>>69816655
Only if national assets are sold to Americans. I don't want the Chinks owning any more shit here.
>>69816871
CITATIONS PLEASE
Common sense says private enterprise performs better than the government EVERY TIME
>>69816871
My fucking God this.
/pol/ really infuriates me
>>69816975
You can't sell them something they already own
>>69816350
>mfw mein fuhrer brings back homesteading in my lifetime
Please say this is true and it happens
So what are we going to do when the debt rises again and we run out of assets to sell?
Its not adressing the problem of uncontrolled spending, this is another BIG THING to pander to his retarded base.
Also, didn't Trump host a show on the history channel that was called "How much is America worth"?
>>69816975
They would be sold to corporations and the rich, who would then proceed to rape those assets for their personal enrichment at the expense of the American people.
>>69817024
>CITATIONS PLEASE
I'm not going to do your research for you. The bottom line is that this sort of thing is one of the strategies that western corporations use to take advantage of poor and developing countries who are deep in debt. It does not work out favorably for them in the end.
>Common sense says private enterprise performs better than the government EVERY TIME
That's not common sense. That is you parroting something you heard from somebody with an ideological agenda.
>>69817069
Shills always come in pairs, you know, because they're paid to make it look like there's actually real discussion.
>>69816350
>reading anything from washington or huffington post
>make a thread on pol about it.
Just kill yourself.
>>69817246
>They would be sold to corporations and the rich, who would then proceed to rape those assets for their personal enrichment at the expense of the American people.
It's a Bernie shill. Move along, nothing to see here
>>69817246
>I'm not going to do your research for you.
So what you're saying is you have no evidence and that you're a paid shill
> The bottom line is that this sort of thing is one of the strategies that western corporations use to take advantage of poor and developing countries who are deep in debt
The United States isn't a developing country you dumbass
>It does not work out favorably for them in the end.
"The US is a developing 3rd-world country being taken advantage by evil capitalists"
>>69817216
>uncontrolled spending
Fixing this won't get rid of the national debt.
>>69817305
So the vast majority of /pol/. I refuse to believe all the trump circlejerking isn't paid shilling
>>69817522
>I refuse to believe all the trump circlejerking isn't paid shilling
We do it for free.
>>69817522
Except there is evidence that paid shills and Bern "I'm not from Reddit" fags raid /pol/
>>69816350
It's the best idea as far as I'm concerned. Sell off shit we don't need to get back in the green, then once we produce money and go into a surplus we can work to regain what we've lost or go above and beyond. But something needs to be done quickly to eliminate this ludicrous debt. This is the best, most effective plan there is. Fuck the government assets. Shrink that shit. I'm in favor of a smaller government regardless. Once we hit a surplus we'll be able to get ten times as much as we "lost" in the first place.
You can't expect to make money and thrive without taking short term sacrifices. It's not difficult. The fact is we're nearly 21 TRILLION in debt and it needs to stop. This plan, if it happens, would signal a massive paradigm shift in the American mentality and in the US Government. We'd get our shit together very quickly.
>>69816871
>>69817069
your retarded aren't you?
>>69817461
>The United States isn't a developing country you dumbass
You're right. We're not a developing country because we don't make retarded decisions like selling our national assets in order to pay off national debt. Regardless of which nation you are, the principle is still the same.
>3rd world country
Please stop using irrelevant, outdated, cold war terminology. Also, "3rd world" was more of a political label than an economic one, anyways.
>>69816350
>Post's Fact Checker column,
>>69817246
>I'm not going to do your research for you.
top
kek
>>69817624
That's even worse
>>69817626
Of course there's paid shilling here. Look at these threads
>>69817675
>your retarded
>>69816350
who the fuck cares?
he could do half the shit he says and pay down the debt by half over 8 years, shit even if he only pays down a quarter of it, are you really going to be disappointed and say hes a failed president? after the last 2 managed to wrack up 11 trillion just by themselves?
>>69817976
>are you really going to be disappointed and say hes a failed president?
Yes, I would. So would historians and everyone who isn't a brainwashed Republican. The consequences of doing this would be severe, and everyone would know it was Trump who caused them.
>>69817976
He's honestly the only candidate who seems to give a shit that we even have a national debt.
>>69816350
>Christina Coleburn
>COLEBURN
>>69816350
>Trump will end the welfare state by executive action
>Trump is going full Galt
Is he really a stealth libertarian out to destroy the state once and for all? Is this real life?
>>69817756
>Regardless of which nation you are, the principle is still the same.
That is absolutely not true. First off, there's no reason to think selling assets to people who are interested in making a profit is a bad thing. Contrary to the beliefs of economically illiterate bern-fags, the free market actually is a win-win for everyone. It generates revenue for taxes, people get jobs, capital is invested, money is made and the cycle repeats.
The government, however, has consistently shown that they're unable to run any sort of "business" successfully as is demonstrated by the shit situation we're currently in.
It's mind boggling to me how idiots like you argue like everything is peachy, like we're not already on the way 21 trillion and debt and skyrocketing under/unemployment.
>>69817216
Maybe we just don't go into 16 trillion dollars of debt next time? I dunno tell me why 16 trillion n debt Is a good thing
>>69817976
I'm more worried that he isn't attacking the root of the problem. If he sells government assets it may lower the debt, but it would come back again in a couple of years. It would especially be a waste if the land is abused like some say it will.
>>69818091
>boogey man consequences and fearmongering
>everything is awesome
>go to sleep
>everything is fine
>>69816350
>in recurring debt to eyeballs
>i know what will fix this
>SELL EVERYTHING
It's funny how the left always bitch about how much the 1% has but never mentions how much shit the government owns...I mean if Bill Gates is supposed to buy everyone in the USA a house why can't the government just sell a few air craft carriers and do the same?
>>69818362
Abused how? Do you even fucking understand how business works? If someone buys the land, it will be to create a product or service that people (ie consumers) want.
>all that beautiful California federal land becomes uncucked at the same time their gun laws become federally uncucked against their will
God I can only hope, Norcal Cabin WHEN
>>69816350
i don't like this idea. i live ~20 minutes from federally owned land. its all forested and open to the public. how am i supposed to go innawoods now?
>>69818558
>everything is fine
>don't do anything to fix it
>we'll just keep spending
>let the debt grow
>don't build a wall
>people will just use submarines
>>69816350
Should sell all the monuments too.
You don't need the White House to be a President, sell it to some rich guy and use the money for something productive for example.
>>69818689
Calm down nigger, that was just a hypothetical. You missed the much bigger point in my post.
>>69818813
buy a ranch faggot
>>69818836
Classic example of a strawman everyone!
>>69818857
Which part? The part where you're creating an undefined boogeyman because you're intellectually dishonest?
>>69818836
government assets =/= national monuments.
>>69818877
private property or no, that won't stop them. if that land gets bought up it would no longer be woods so i couldn't go innawoods. i don't wanna go innamidpricedhousing or innafootballfield
>>69817675
PRAISE THATCHER
PRIVATISE EVERYTHING
BRING BACK THE 80S X 1000
>>69819016
>implying it would all be developed
>implying it would all be bought
>implying people won't start innawoods businesses
there is an absurd amount of land
>>69819016
>not wanting to live innafootballfield
>>69818950
You're dumb as fuck. Following your logic, stopping the country from getting into more debt is an "undefined boogeyman" and being "intellectually dishonest".
>>>/reddit/
>>69819016
>I believe my camping should be subsidized for trillions of dollars
>I'll let people be unemployed before I let some trees get cut down
>>69817246
>I'm not going to do your research for you.
Then don't be surprised when people disregard your unfounded opinion
>>69816350
>as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
or legalize prostitution in las vegas and other heavy casino areas
then legalize weed across the country
>>69819205
>we shouldn't try to make the country solvent by liquidating assets
>implying that liquidating assets wouldn't also include balancing the fucking budget
Go fuck yourself dishonest shill
>>69818813
You may be able to buy the land for a nice price and put a cabin on it now. Or a giant statue of trump
>>69818887
It's the same principle. Selling public stuff to private owners.
What's next? Destroying national parks? Robbing citizens of something to give it to some rich elite.
>>69818959
Except they are.
>2020
>MSNBC
>"LOOKING BACK ON TRUMPS PRESIDENCY, HE WAS CLEARLY A FAILED PRESIDENT FOR ONLY PAYING DOWN A QUARTER OF THE DEBT WHEN HE PROMISED ALL OF IT"
this is what you shills will be saying i'm sure
>>69819434
It's not the same example at all. There is literally millions of acres of unused property/land that the federal government is holding. You are likening selling unused lands to selling landmarks in Washington DC. It's intellectually dishonest.
>>69818689
Also if government assets are sold wouldn't that inherently reduce the wasted money and give us a surplus anyways? Right now the government is full of fraud and money manipulation. By removing the assets you also remove the cost associated the assets (and the cost at which fraud and money manipulation expends on the government). So by selling off that shit you'd also eliminate tons of waste by proxy, which would further give us more money annually. So ideally if this is correct you'd be able to solve the national debt crisis and segway into effeciently reorganizing the government spending in one neat little package.
Is this assumption correct or am I wrong?
I'm not very familiar with the subject, I admit.
>>69816655
Depends
>>69817216
>Also, didn't Trump host a show on the history channel that was called "How much is America worth"?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14vf96_what-s-america-worth-2011_shortfilms
>>69816655
It would send the economy into a recession. You can't cut that much so quickly and expect the private sector to pick it up, it's insane.
>>69816871
?
It's not selling off national assets retard
It's ended the flagrant waste of government assets, getting rid of shit just sitting there or being misused
And then accessing the resources sitting in federal land
>>69819655
>so quickly
I don't think he would sell every gov owned land in one week.
>GUYS GUYS TRUMP IS BAD GUYS LOOK TRUMP IS BAD WHY YOU GUYS LIKE HIM TRUMP IS BAD LOOK HERE IT IS A SITE SAYING HE IS BAD
everyday every fucking day theres a new one, i am getting tired of this, put this man in the officse asap.
The communist menace must be engaged.
>>69819350
oh please. the very instant the land is earmarked for sale it will be bought under the table before that knowledge is even made public. guess its my fault for not having connections :(
>>69819601
That's the next logical step.
Already happened in some countries too.
I could have used beaches and how privatizing them is taking away from the general populace but I doubt you would care. After all everything must be privatized for people like you.
>>69819655
Pick up what?
Oh, right, you're British.
Most of the government doesn't do a god damned thing.
>>69818091
>The consequences of doing this would be severe
Still haven't said how.
>>69819992
It's not the next logical step, or if it was, it would've been because the previous sell-off was an astounding success. Frankly, maybe if the private sector ran the Washington Monument the fucking elevator would be functional.
>>69820106
>the boogeyman will get you
>>69819845
Well I would think that but desu theres a lot of land. I dont know if rich people can buy it all. Or would even care to. Some is just empty desert or fields, no ore, no oil, no timber.
>>69818091
The consequences of Bush and Obama are already severe. Doing more of the same, or doing the same but at increased levels, is guaranteed disaster. B-b-but Trump is scary!!!!!
>>69820221
I think you mean Boogie man
>Hint: It's Cruz
>>69820296
land is still an asset that will only get more valuable over time. eventually urban sprawl will get to it, or it will get zoned industrial, etc
>>69818821
>increase coast guard patrol
>they'll just use planes anyways
>some random fucker will build a big tunnel
>illegal immigration is inevitable so fuck doing anything about it amirite?
Fuck this defeatist attitude
>USA sells assets
>USA out of debt
>Game resumes with playing field somewhat leveled, USA position slightly-weakened yet debt-free and ready to kick ass
I don't see the problem here.
>>69816350
Can't wait to move to the middle of Utah and breed white daughters for /pol/ack friends under the banner of the god emperor.
>>69819434
>>69819992
>A: gonna sell this penthouse I own in florida
>A: don't really need it and I could use the cash
>B: no! don't sell your birth certificate!
>A: what no, I'm selling unused assets
>B: next you'll whore out your daughter!
>A: are you even listening?
>>69820574
exactly.
>>69819468
>2020
>4 years
>Trump says he'd do it in 8 years
excuse me
>>69820574
>>69820623
Only because you lack foresight it doesn't mean everyone else is as blind as you.
Are foreigners allowed to buy the land?
>>69820711
so 8 years then jesus christ you missed the point completely.
>>69820917
under Trump, no. Under Clinton, she already has
>>69820811
Next time, without Italy
On one hand, I think selling government assets is great.
On the other hand, I hope that private megacorps don't buy all of the land. Maybe let them lease some of it for natural resources or sell it to American companies who aren't owned by multinationalists who have shell companies and offshore bank accounts to evade taxes.
At the end of the day, I would rather the land (and other assets) end up in the hands of the American people.
>QUESTION:
What are the costs that the US Government is currently spending annually on owned assets? How much money would selling them free up? We're talking about the cost gained from selling the assets in the first place, but how much money would also be prevented from being wasted in the first place? That could boost the net gain even higher.
>>69816655
well, the chinks are already buying water rights and land with water in the midwest. fucking illinois may as well be renamed beijing
>>69817246
>make a claim
>someone asks you to back it up
>"I'm not going to do your research for you."
lol, shill harder
>>69820929
yeah you're right actually i didnt even read the whole thing i actually agree with you now that i went back and looked kek
>>69820917
no one has stopped chinese banks yet
>>69819992
>I could have used beaches and how privatizing them is taking away from the general populace
Public beaches are always filled with blacks and mexicans who don't take good care of the public space. Charging even a token fee eliminates this. I support beach privatization 100%.
A transition to make the government as thin as possible while still enforcing the law, supporting the infrastructure, guaranteeing security and maintaining the starndards is ever better that what I expected from Trump's ideas.
A strong leadership but with a limited state and a free nationalist economy. Thinking as a nation but acting as individuals.
You must also think that private owning doesn't mean do whatever the owner wants, or to destroy history or nature. You can sell state owned assets and regulate the use of them with the laws.
>>69821207
And it would finally give the bureau of land management something productive to do.
>>69816498
Here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/02/transcript-donald-trump-interview-with-bob-woodward-and-robert-costa/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumppresidency-7pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl
Except the only statement in there which appears in OP is Trump says he could cover the debt in 8yrs.
>>69816871
>Bad idea. Selling off national assets to pay off national debt has never worked well for any country.
Nether has women's lib or massive influxes of immigrants who don't assimilate.
>Glenn Kessler, who writes the Post's Fact Checker column, deemed the plan "nonsensical" and gave it "Four Pinocchios." Kessler assessed that even if Trump were to eliminate every government function and shut down every Cabinet agency, he would still be short $16 trillion.
>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.
What a stupid bunch of cynicals. If they know that the 3 trillion account doesn't include the biggest part of it, yet they keep with trying to make him look bad saying it won't work with just 3 trillion.
>>69824038
They're just faggots. Trump said very explicitly the reason he wouldn't turnover federal land to the states is because they would sell it to pay off their state debt, and we have to preserve that land. He's talking about mineral rights and land use leases.
>>69824038
>>69824278
Source
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dont-hand-federal-lands-to-states/
>>69824038
Exactly, but everyone for some reason just jumps to the conclusion that land is the only government asset and that it's 100% what Trump was talking about.
>>69816529
YES
>>69817135
mother fuck I kek to this
