The US national debt is now in the region of 9 trillion dollars…interest on the debt is now eating up a huge percentage of tax revenues…and it is getting worse: the obligations of the US government (as the ageing “baby boomers” retire) will eventually swamp the capital markets…, leading to bankruptcy.
I have a modest proposal…this would completely ELIMINATE the debt, within 5 years! Here goes:
-the amount of money in IRAs and 401K plants now amounts to about 9 trillion$.
-the US governemnt owns assets (land, forests, oilfiels, and government buildings) estimated to be worth 4-5 trillion$
-what we basically do is convert the US government’s assets into shares in a REIT-and sell these shares to the public. As the money comes in, it is EARMARKET for debt paydown…no politician will be able to sponsor bills to divert it for other purposes.
In 4-5 yeras time, the huge government REIT will have sold out its assets, now owned by the American people. The country is now debt -free, and the governemnt can now drop income taxes > 30% across the board! Consumption rises…and the USA experiences an economic boom that drive unemployment down to zero!
What do you think? 
Or just stop throwing trillions into an illegal war and into a grossly oversized military industrial complex.
Or try to get the government to actually be reasonably fiscally responsible?
I know, that’s freaking crazy talk…
No Democrat or Republican actually wants that…
They just all want to whine and piss-on about BS until they sink the
country into the Pacific…
All the while bitching at each other and point fingers that it was those evil
WhatEverTheFuckTheOtherSideIs…
We need a new political movement in this country, because I’m seriously sick
of all the bullshit.
Sorry to hijack your fun with numbers campaign.
Are you actually suggesting the the US sell off all of it assets? To individuals? Now wouldn’t that make a holy mess.
This is an idea whose time has not come.
who manages the “american people’s” assets once they have been sold off? Where does the money come from to pay for their upkeep?
I wonder how much it would cost to get the Constellation and a coupla tenders. Man, that would be the coolest way to get to the Hamptons ever.
Prolly have to get two slips at the marina, though, huh?
How to eliminate the national debt in 10 seconds:
Tell your creditors that you ain’t paying 'em and there’s fuck all they can do about it.
Job done.
Note: This method may not work in the real world.
I love this board. Now, whenever I see “hypothecate” I’m going to think “EARMARKET”. This is the funniest thing since the guy who ran over Wildest Bill’s head on a motorbike.
I think it’s more accurate to describe today’s conditions as a ULLMARKET.
I’m a bit confused by both your concept and your math. You claim the debt is 9 trillion and the assets you wish to sell off are worth 5 trillion. Yet you claim that we will completely retire the debt. That sounds like the kind of arithmetic that got us into this mess to begin with.
Your concept also has us selling land to the American peoplethat already belongs to us. An odd concept, and one that leaves us with no assets next time the debt rises. It might be a better idea to just get the Bureau of Land Management to stop renting out its assets for a fraction of what they're worth.
I'm also wondering if there are any threads on any subject that Muffin isn't going to be pissing on in the near future. Yes, Muffin, we get it. You think the war is illegal. You're not alone. But I'm not sure what purpose dragging it into every thread serves, except to annoy people on the board.Trillions of what, Nigerian Naira?
If you owe the bank $1000, you’re in trouble. If you owe $1000,000, they’re in trouble. If you owe $1000,000,000,000 - everyone’s in trouble.
First of all, I agree that selling of US assets is a horrible idea. In all but the strictest definition of the economy, there are certain things that are better kept in the public arena than privately owned, since that way you can maximize the use of them. National parks, for instance. I’ll handle gov’t buildings later.
Additionally, though, there’s the problem of excessive moneys hanging around from the sale. Most of our debt instruments are longer term than 4-5 years. The devolution would have to take place over a longer period of time than that.
Now, if we were downsizing government and had little use for our buildings, we could provide a steady stream of income over the life of our long term bonds by leasing our the government space at MARKET costs (as opposed to, say, the rent price on nat’l forests.) However, considering we already rent out private bldgs for govt use, I don’t think that maximizes efficiency right there.
This problem of long term bonds is also a factor in schemes to lower the debt by raising taxes. Sure you can rake in the dough but you have to put it somewhere before your bonds come due (or buy them back at a premium.)
I however have a solution to this: raise taxes to what you think will cover the debt. Then, if you have an unexpected windfall for that year, instead of buying back the debt, send it back to the people in the form of an early disbursement of Social Security benefits. Put it in something like an IRA.
That would make everyone happy. The economy would not fall as much as expected due to people getting back more money due to the partial privatization of SS, and govt would save money over the long run on SS. However the downfall to this is the payments would become a politically expected thing 
Probably be easier to build a time machine, then go back to 2000 and prevent George W. Bush from being “elected.” 
How about we just spend 9% less than we tax and use the surplus to nibble away at the debt until it’s gone?
Another thing that people overlook is that most of the national debt is in the form of government bonds and treasury notes held by investors. If the government were to come into a sudden windfall of cash from whatever source and suddenly pay back all of these notes prematurely, the effect on the economy would be devastating.
My apologies. I stated trillions when I should have stated hundreds of billions.
http://www.fcnl.org/smith/congress_defense_bud401-04.htm
Might want to check the names and parties of Congress whom voted for the money and to grant permission for the war. Might surprise you.
When it comes to significantly reducing expenditures, getting out of Iraq is extremely high on the list, particularly because such military expenditure reduction would not have major negative ramifications on core government services which otherwise might be cut.
Raise taxes and fees? Perhaps necessary, but hardly a popular solution, and certainly a drag on the economy.
Sell assets? No more than a band-aid to an ongoing problem, which will leave you with assets depleted but deficit spending continuing.
Cut spending? Sure, but where? Core government services or a useless war? Let’s think real hard here. Don’t let your animosity toward me stand in the way of reason.
As Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in in his “The Chance for Peace” address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on 16 April 1953: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
I realize that support for the war expenditures (and military expenditures over many decades) has come from members of both parties, and is generally supported by the American public. The problem with such a misdirection of resources is an American problem, not just a single political party problem.