Article

2011-04-05 Home Front: Politix

Rampant spending & debt ceiling to collide mid May. Some clowns asking about fire sale.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2011-04-05 12:18|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Sorry. Here's the link.

Posted by gorb 2011-04-05 13:18|| 2011-04-05 13:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Let's sell off this utterly useless and wasteful federal government and all of the ass maggots that work for it to China. Does anyone want a $4 trillion dollar miter stone?

We will keep our military of course, thats all we really need.

Posted by newc 2011-04-05 14:08|| 2011-04-05 14:08|| Front Page Top

#3 I like the idea of selling public lands, though we shouldn't be forced to do it at fire sale prices.

For example: we could sell leases for land under which oil is likely to be found. Then we could let the oil companies drill for oil and if they find it charge a royalty for production. I know, I know, crazy idea but I'm thinking out of the box here.

We could sell leases (or the land outright) where one might find minerals. Timber. Sell the land on which ski resorts have been built -- let them pay for the land and pay taxes.

Go through each parcel of land. Keep Yellowstone, keep Yosemite, keep the national parks. But the rest? Feel free to start selling it off, not at fire-sale prices but for good money, and use that money to reduce the deficit.

Our children will thank us.

Posted by Steve White 2011-04-05 14:13|| 2011-04-05 14:13|| Front Page Top

#4 Maybe Obumbles can lease out the Lincoln bedroom like Clinton did.

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-04-05 14:40|| 2011-04-05 14:40|| Front Page Top

#5 All of the so-called Federally owned land belongs to the States in which it resides and therefore the citizens of those States.

In my mind all Federal land holdings are illegitimate, as is the Federal Government.

Gut the FedGov, shutdown D.C. and relocate the Capitol to the center of the country. All politicians live in dorms and eat in a gov cafeteria. I have lots more...very severe.

Time to put the "service" back into Public Servant. Heads on pikes.

Posted by Secret Asian Man (at large) 2011-04-05 16:24|| 2011-04-05 16:24|| Front Page Top

#6 Great idea, Steve - but not until AFTER spending has been cut drastically and permanently. Otherwise it's the same as "one more amnesty, and then we'll secure the borders."

I have a family member who is a spendaholic. I helped her to the tune of $20,000 over two years so she wouldn't lose her house or her car. I am not rich and made sacrifices to provide that help (I don't even own a house or a car myself). But no matter what I did, she couldn't stay current on her mortgage. When I discovered she'd charged up my credit card too, I realized the behavior was an addiction she couldn't control, any more than an alcoholic. I told her, "I love you, but not another dime."

Within three months, she was current on her mortgage, and doesn't need my help anymore.

Moral of the story: pumping extra revenue into the government ~~coffers~~ sieve strikes me as a bad idea, until the spending problem is dealt with first.

Posted by RandomJD 2011-04-05 18:17|| 2011-04-05 18:17|| Front Page Top

#7 "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
The Prophet Ronald Reagan(PBUH)

"Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent."

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-04-05 19:00|| 2011-04-05 19:00|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:03 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:32 rammer
22:32 Grusose Black2144
22:22 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:14 rammer
21:13 trailing wife
21:05 Zebulon Thranter9685
21:02 OldSpook
20:44 OldSpook
20:08 phil_b
20:05 Besoeker
19:46 JosephMendiola
19:44 JosephMendiola
19:41 Frank G
19:39 JosephMendiola
19:33 Dale
19:29 Bobby
19:13 Bobby