Wow, talk about debt!

[Rich]

Watched an add tonight about lake Erie. I guess they estimate the lake has 127 trillion gallons of water.

Hmmm, lets say every gallon represents $ 1. Thats $127 TRILLION dollars.

The national debt is what, 3 Trillion?

So, the lake is only 42 times larger than our national debt!!!

Thats a LOT OF DEEP WATER !!!!

Rich
:withstupid::thumpdown::y::tongue::wink::!::dong:: x

[freakscene]

the national debt could be eliminated quickly and easily.

BLM "manages" over 258 million acres of land. Why the Federal government "owns" this land is another question, but for the sake of the argument, the debt could be eliminated if the Fed would place that land back in the proper hands where it belongs - the private sector.

and not National Parks either which only contain something like 84 million acres.

i did the math once, and if they sold even *some* of the rest at a paltry 400 an acre it could be done. I'm pretty sure they could get 400 an acre.

/rant off

[BuyOnDips]

The debt is a little over 9 trillion. But if you add in the unfunded government pensions, social security, medicaid costs and other promises it is over 59 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBlkfWnjM88

[freakscene]

The debt is a little over 9 trillion. But if you add in the unfunded government pensions, social security, medicaid costs and other promises it is over 59 trillion.

4,000 an acre ;)

or heed the warnings of people like Greenspan or comptroller general David Walker and put an end to the welfare state, cradle to grave, nanny government the Fed has become

[netwrangler]

the national debt could be eliminated quickly and easily.

BLM "manages" over 258 million acres of land. Why the Federal government "owns" this land is another question, but for the sake of the argument, the debt could be eliminated if the Fed would place that land back in the proper hands where it belongs - the private sector.

and not National Parks either which only contain something like 84 million acres.

i did the math once, and if they sold even *some* of the rest at a paltry 400 an acre it could be done. I'm pretty sure they could get 400 an acre.

/rant offYeah, right, FS -- just what we need. [not]
Let's have the private sector buy and develop

Yosemite
Sequoia
Point Reyes
Humboldt Redwoods
Anza Borrego

I'm just mentioning a few of the priceless locations in my state alone.
I mean, "Give me a wounded break!" Can you imagine what 'free enterprise' would do to these sites?

In my view, your answer is a perfect example of how adhering to 'doctrine' leads to imperfect [not to say 'stupid'] positions. Don't know how you got out there on the right wing of this airplane. Have to believe, though, that if you really want to fly this plane, you need to come into the cockpit. That's located in the fuselage, which [in case you missed this] in toward the center. :biggrin:

[freakscene]

edit >> double post

[freakscene]

Yeah, right, FS -- just what we need. [not]
Let's have the private sector buy and develop

Yosemite
Sequoia
Point Reyes
Humboldt Redwoods
Anza Borrego

I'm just mentioning a few of the priceless locations in my state alone.
I mean, "Give me a wounded break!" Can you imagine what 'free enterprise' would do to these sites?

In my view, your answer is a perfect example of how adhering to 'doctrine' leads to imperfect [not to say 'stupid'] positions. Don't know how you got out there on the right wing of this airplane. Have to believe, though, that if you really want to fly this plane, you need to come into the cockpit. That's located in the fuselage, which [in case you missed this] in toward the center. :biggrin:


With all due respect Mr. Net, perhaps you should read the entire post of mine before making such comments or judging who is and who is not in the center (its not anyone supporting Obama mind you). :p

I excluded National Parks. :)

You can exclude State parks too if you wish and the land is still available. perhaps you are unaware of just how much land the BLM "manages" that IS NOT a National "treasure".

the acreage is in the millions.

?

[netwrangler]

With all due respect Mr. Net, perhaps you should read the entire post of mine before making such comments or judging who is and who is not in the center (its not anyone supporting Obama mind you). :p

I excluded National Parks. :)

You can exclude State parks too if you wish and the land is still available. perhaps you are unaware of just how much land the BLM "manages" that IS NOT a National "treasure".

the acreage is in the millions.

?Well, you are right, FS. I was wrong. I did not read your post fully. What can I say?

Thought I wrote some pretty 'pithy' comments, nonetheless. :wink:

The BLM question is, IMO, a good one for 'defining' the role of GOVERNMENT. Well, perhaps I mean 'reviewing' the role. In my view, the BLM land holdings represent a panoply of individual issues that cover most of the political spectrum.

Do we really want to 'sell' the San Bernadino National Forest?
If BLM land is sold, what will happen to grazing leases, and to the ranchers who depend on those leases? If 'honored' until expiration, how will the leases be renegotiated?
Which is more important? -- A desert tortoise or an off-road ride on a bike. [Note: This is an obvious 'false dichotomy'. Moreover, this is an issue that could be resolved by 'moderates'.]
What is a 'wetland' anyway? [see 'Note" above regarding 'resolution' by moderates.]
So, FS, I figure that your 'sell everything the BLM owns' was kind of a strawman. It's a great way to begin a discussion.
Do you see any limits to the liquidation of BLM assets?

[Always fun to post with you,]

Net

[freakscene]

Well, you are right, FS. I was wrong. I did not read your post fully. What can I say?

Thought I wrote some pretty 'pithy' comments, nonetheless. :wink:

The BLM question is, IMO, a good one for 'defining' the role of GOVERNMENT. Well, perhaps I mean 'reviewing' the role. In my view, the BLM land holdings represent a panoply of individual issues that cover most of the political spectrum.

Do we really want to 'sell' the San Bernadino National Forest?
If BLM land is sold, what will happen to grazing leases, and to the ranchers who depend on those leases? If 'honored' until expiration, how will the leases be renegotiated?
Which is more important? -- A desert tortoise or an off-road ride on a bike. [Note: This is an obvious 'false dichotomy'. Moreover, this is an issue that could be resolved by 'moderates'.]
What is a 'wetland' anyway? [see 'Note" above regarding 'resolution' by moderates.]
So, FS, I figure that your 'sell everything the BLM owns' was kind of a strawman. It's a great way to begin a discussion.
Do you see any limits to the liquidation of BLM assets?

[Always fun to post with you,]

Net

You too.

But I beg of you to read the post again, because it still appears you are missing a main component of my proposal.

I never ever suggested 'sell everything the BLM owns' .

In fact, I removed the best lands that they manage from the equation, yet still solved a problem that many seem to consider too monumental to have such a simple solution. Heck, there isnt even 1 single tax raise in it. ;)

For the record, if you include the subsurface lands, BLM is responsible for close to 700 million acres. Thats 700 million !

I do not believe the framers of the Constitution ever would have considered the central Federal Government being the largest single land owner in the country to be a very wise idea of spreading liberty or prosperity.

So what would be the limits to liquidating BLM assets?

Good question. Let me think about it. Aside from eliminating the canard of the National Debt, I can not think of any at the moment.

Some things are easier to comprehend as a fraction, so according to the Heritage Foundation, which I trust, the Federal Government "owns" 1/3 of the total land in the United States. Thats disturbing.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1282.cfm

(includes footnotes for quoted sources)

cheers

[netwrangler]

You too.

But I beg of you to read the post again, because it still appears you are missing a main component of my proposal.

I never ever suggested 'sell everything the BLM owns' .

In fact, I removed the best lands that they manage from the equation, yet still solved a problem that many seem to consider too monumental to have such a simple solution. Heck, there isnt even 1 single tax raise in it. ;)

For the record, if you include the subsurface lands, BLM is responsible for close to 700 million acres. Thats 700 million !

I do not believe the framers of the Constitution ever would have considered the central Federal Government being the largest single land owner in the country to be a very wise idea of spreading liberty or prosperity.

So what would be the limits to liquidating BLM assets?

Good question. Let me think about it. Aside from eliminating the canard of the National Debt, I can not think of any at the moment.

Some things are easier to comprehend as a fraction, so according to the Heritage Foundation, which I trust, the Federal Government "owns" 1/3 of the total land in the United States. Thats disturbing.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1282.cfm

(includes footnotes for quoted sources)

cheersThis goes back a ways.

As I recall, the Louisiana Purchase took place in 1803. I figure there were still some Constitutional framers around then.

I'll argue that, traditionally and historically, the State has been the major landholder. Moreover, our country has been at the forefront of land reform. The homestead acts worked for more than 100 years as a way for citizens to claim land and build sweat-equity. We can be proud of how our 'State' has divested itself of land.

With that as perspective, I have a couple of questions.

What are the legitimate objectives of the BLM? That is to ask, what should they be? Simply saying, "there are none," is begging the question. Of course there are some.

What land use are we foregoing by having the BLM 'control' the land? Of course, this question is linked to the first. But I think it is proper to see the BLM's role in the light of alternative uses - good and bad.
These are not rhetorical questions. I ask them in all sincerity.

Your linked article raises several points that relate to my questions. I really liked:
"A recent poll found that approximately 70 percent of registered voters believe state and local governments would do a better job of environmental protection than the federal government can do."
That's certainly how we feel about it here in California — especially when it is the Bush Administration that is 'protecting' our environment.

Despite my agreement there, I got the feeling the article was saying, "The answer is more local control and less Federal control. What was the question?"

This reminds me of my Corporate years.
The Executive Committee commissioned a Task Force with the charge of reducing the number of management reports the company was producing. They identified around 800 periodic reports. No Manager was willing to give up the reports they 'relied upon'. In the end, their 'Report on Reports' was added to the list.

In the world of economics, this is viewed as dis-economies of scale.

BTW: The leader of the Report Task Force told me afterwards that they had considered recommending a summary report that consisted of a single arrow - pointed either up or down. Of course, that would have been just one more report. :?

[netwrangler]

Oh, and if we are going to sell the land to reduce the national debt, we'd better market to the Chinese and the Oil Sheiks - they are the ones who could afford to buy.

[Rich]

[QUOTE=BuyOnDips;94790]The debt is a little over 9 trillion. But if you add in the unfunded government pensions, social security, medicaid costs and other promises it is over 59 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

So, this means if we wanted to BAIL OUT THE US DEBT we would have bail out HALF of Lake Erie! If we view each gallon equal to a dollar.

WOW!! Put that into perspective for a campain add! You heard it here first folks!

Rich

[concrete]

Oh, and if we are going to sell the land to reduce the national debt, we'd better market to the Communist and the Terrorist - they are the ones who could afford to buy.

Fixed!

[netwrangler]

Oh, and if we are going to sell the land to reduce the national debt, we'd better market to the Chinese and the Oil Sheiks - they are the ones who could afford to buy.

Fixed!Not funny, Concrete.

You are free to post what you want. You are NOT free to mis-quote me in your post.

[concrete]

You're right, I'm sorry. I was just trying to correct the euphemisms.

[netwrangler]

You're right, I'm sorry. I was just trying to correct the euphemisms.Apology accepted. I believe that you were not so much trying to put words in my mouth [keyboard?] as you were trying to be clever. In doing so you, IMO, breached forum etiquette. You apologized. I accept that completely, and feel that your apology demonstrates integrity on your part. So let's forget about all that and go to the issues.

Your last sentence states that you were trying to 'correct' my euphemisms'.

You feel that "Chinese" is a euphemism for "Communists." I don't. I don't believe that all Chinese are Communists. Many Chinese have entrepreneurial skills that would bring them success under any Capitalistic régime.
You feel that "Oil Sheiks" is a euphemism for "Terrorists." I don't. I don't believe that all Oil Sheiks are terrorists. Some, I'm sure, finance terrorists. But others show up on the political spectrum as Moderates or Conservatives. An article about Abu Dhabi on CNNmoney [linked here (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402357/index.htm)] tells me that the Nahyan family of Abu Dhabi and the Maktoum family of Dubai [cousins, BTW] have little to gain and much to lose from an increase in terrorism.

Where you see 'Chinese' as a euphemism for 'Communists', I see 'Communists' as a a bigoted label that fails to distinguish amongst the different political views in China.

Where you see 'Oil Sheiks' as a euphemism for 'Terrorists', I see 'Terrorists' as a bigoted label that fails to distinguish amongst the different political views in the Middle East.
==========
IMHO, The real issue here is how the US should deal with sovereign funds. OK, that's not quite tightly coupled with a thread on "Debt". It certainly ties to the Chinese and the Oil Sheiks.

[Horsefish]

Gentlemen: This is a forum of light topics. But I couldn't help saying that I would welcome the chance to purchase a thousand acres of beautiful undeveloped land at 400 per acre,to build a cabin and set up my internet access to the stock market. Close your eyes and just imagine!

[concrete]

Heck, since you have to pay rent in the form of property taxes, else big men with guns come shoot you, everything is government-owned.

[concrete]

I don't believe that all Chinese are Communists. Many Chinese have entrepreneurial skills that would bring them success under any Capitalistic régime. .

Thank you for accepting my apology. I agree the Chinese people have entrepreneurial skills, I do business with them every day. They are beautiful hardworking people. Too bad they're not in charge of China because those who are are animals, just ask the Tibetans. So for labels may I substitute animals for communist without being bigoted towards murders?

[netwrangler]

Thank you for accepting my apology. I agree the Chinese people have entrepreneurial skills, I do business with them every day. They are beautiful hardworking people. Too bad they're not in charge of China because those who are are animals, just ask the Tibetans. So for labels may I substitute animals for communist without being bigoted towards murders?Well, no, you can't make that substitution.

That said, I hold no brief for China's actions in Tibet. I wonder if we separated 'China' from 'Chinese' we might agree more often.
[Semantics are a wonderful thing. 8O ]

=====
I liked your concept that, since we pay property taxes, the State ['government' in your post] actually owns everything.
Earlier I stated that I thought you were 'trying to be clever'.
Let the record show that I believe you are clever.

The philosophical question implied by your conceit* is

whether, because we pay property taxes, the government owns everything
or

whether, because we need some government, the property owners are a logical class [but not the only class] of folks to pay for it.

I'm used to situations where no one is riding 'a white horse'. Those situations are what makes trading the game that it is.

So does the market go up or go down as the result of property taxes?

Ain't trading fun?