We have several assets that can be used.

1. US Military - A mercenary force that is unmatched. Top dollar offers only, please.
2. US Nuclear arsenal - An expensive, but highly successful way to tip the balance of power your way.
3. California - As Steve pointed out, an entire state could be sold. SOLD AS IS
4. GM - Being a government asset has it's advantages. Best government cars since the YUGO!

Is this what Danivon was talking about assets? He seemed pretty open minded about the myriad of possibilities.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You are trying to finesse this. Isn't the obvious implication of your question that our assets outweigh our liabilities?

Ah, I see the problem here. The thing is, this is your inference. My question was asked in good faith.

Was it? Here's the original post:

Danivon wrote:All this panic about debt, right? But does anyone here even know what the other side of the balance sheet - US government assets looks like?

Because it's the combination of the two, not debt alone, that tells you where the Federal government is.

First, it does not address the level of interest on the debt directly.

Second, it does imply (see bold) that the situation may not be as bad as stated.

You are simply wrong. Were we trying to calculate net worth, you would be right. However, no one has asked about our net worth or worried about it. What we have questioned is the wisdom of an ever-increasing burden of interest on the National Debt payments.

If not, what was the point of posting it?

Well, because:
1) It appeared that you and others had not considered it
2) It may have some bearing on the matter at hand, ie: what the problem is and what ways there are to solve it
3) I don't know the answer and wondered if anyone else had any information

Grand, but without some examples of what might be sold or leased, it is utterly meaningless. I suppose you, more than any politician or economist in the US, have come up with a keen idea? No, just a research project for others? Want some stimulus money?

If so, isn't the obligation on you? If not, why not?

Generally, it is not considered the case that if someone asks a question that they are obliged to answer it.

You are by all means free to avoid the question, that is your prerogative.

Ah, by "avoiding" the question, you certainly mean no slight. I certainly mean no slight when I say if you want to avoid providing information that would help, instead of asking virtually unanswerable questions, that is your prerogative.

I don't know (hence my question) what assets there are, and so I have not suggested any.

Oh, but you asked . . . just in case some Redscaper has a full list of the approximate value of the properties of the USA?

Well, gee, how thoughtful of you! By that, I do not mean to imply you are not thoughtful, though you certainly may infer that--if you are so inclined.

1) Lease the asset. It may be that renting an asset could bring in more income than the sale of it would reduce interest payments by.

Oil leases for example? Of course, the current government might sell the lease, but it won't really issue those nasty drilling permits.

No, I made the argument that assets were likely to be missing from your analysis, and asked if that were the case and if you were able to tell us what assets there are. I am not upset, I'm highly amused at your obfuscation and desire to avoid the question. It's as if you don't want to admit that you hadn't thought of assets as anything other than 'stuff to sell'.

Again, apparently no one in the USA has ever thought of this. You are the first! Maybe you should be running the White House--or at least the President's reelection campaign. The smartest man ever elected President hasn't thought of it--or if he has, he hasn't seen fit to mention it.

Again, I don't see why I should answer a question that I have asked. It was not rhetorical, it was not loaded, it was a question. It was a serious question and I'm afraid it was based upon my training and experience in looking at budgets wherein there are always four basic components: income; expenditure; assets; liabilities.

It was such a "serious" question that you could not be bothered to answer it? Oh, okay.

However, I need to correct you, because you did indeed lie.

Interesting. I'm sure it will meet the dictionary definition since you are such a "serious" person.

intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2
: to create a false or misleading impression

I never asserted that assets were greater than debts and/or liabilities. I didn't even say that if they were there'd be no issue. I was saying that in order to have a full picture, you should consider assets as part of the balance sheet. But you wrote:

Doctor Fate in post 138 wrote:You have no idea if our assets outweigh our debts and obligations, but you assert it as the absolute truth.

I repeat, I did not assert any such thing, and so you did lie.

There was no intent to deceive on my part. So, #1 is out. Did I create a false or misleading impression? That's debatable. Look, if you did not mean to assert that our assets outweigh our debts and/or liabilities, what would be the point of asking the question? Just to "think outside of the box?" Well, it's so far outside of the box that no one in American politics is discussing your idea.

Misinterpreting your intent (allegedly) is not the same as "an intent to deceive." So, #2 is out.

I didn't lie.

The current position is that our interest payments are going to quadruple.

What is this assertion based on? Over what period will this happen? Is it measured in 2011 dollars, absolute dollars, %GDP or %Spending? How is a future projection part of the current position?

I linked them. You read them and get back to me.

This is the game you play--you provide no info, ask questions, then get outraged by whatever. I'm not playing your stupid game. Play it solitaire.

bbauska wrote:We have several assets that can be used.

1. US Military - A mercenary force that is unmatched. Top dollar offers only, please.
2. US Nuclear arsenal - An expensive, but highly successful way to tip the balance of power your way.
3. California - As Steve pointed out, an entire state could be sold. SOLD AS IS
4. GM - Being a government asset has it's advantages. Best government cars since the YUGO!

Is this what Danivon was talking about assets? He seemed pretty open minded about the myriad of possibilities.

5. White House. Bunker is safe for children to play in. Lincoln bedroom could fetch quite a per night price.
6. Air Force One. The President can use that bus--or fly commercial.

bbauska wrote:We have several assets that can be used.

1. US Military - A mercenary force that is unmatched. Top dollar offers only, please.
2. US Nuclear arsenal - An expensive, but highly successful way to tip the balance of power your way.
3. California - As Steve pointed out, an entire state could be sold. SOLD AS IS
4. GM - Being a government asset has it's advantages. Best government cars since the YUGO!

Is this what Danivon was talking about assets? He seemed pretty open minded about the myriad of possibilities.

I was talking about actual assets in terms of keeping a book. There's a lot of Federal land, and some foreign holdings to boot. Then there are a load of buildings, a fair amount of plant, the contents of the above, etc etc etc.

The first two are kind of assets with some value other than their simple total tangible financial one, although I wonder if members of the US military would actually agree to be hired out as mercenaries overtly, or if it would be considered a good idea to sell weapons that could be used to destroy yourself many times over. Still, I imagine that if the US cut its defence budget and in doing so reduced it's nuclear estate it could free up other assets (like the land that is used) for sale/lease/whatever.

I'm not sure it would be Constitutional for the USA to sell a State, though. It was legal for the USA to buy territory from another country, and so perhaps some of the USA's overseas territories could be sold off, but a member State of the Union would surely have to consent to be removed from the Union if it had not itself transgressed the USC.

But, GM (or the stock that is held in GM) is indeed an asset. Maybe not worth as much as it might be at other times, so perhaps not a great time to sell up.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:We have several assets that can be used.

1. US Military - A mercenary force that is unmatched. Top dollar offers only, please.
2. US Nuclear arsenal - An expensive, but highly successful way to tip the balance of power your way.
3. California - As Steve pointed out, an entire state could be sold. SOLD AS IS
4. GM - Being a government asset has it's advantages. Best government cars since the YUGO!

Is this what Danivon was talking about assets? He seemed pretty open minded about the myriad of possibilities.

5. White House. Bunker is safe for children to play in. Lincoln bedroom could fetch quite a per night price.

And it often has...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Ah, I see the problem here. The thing is, this is your inference. My question was asked in good faith.

Was it?

Yes. Scout's Honour (and I was a Scout).

Here's the original post:

Well, you chose a part of it.

Even if I was implying that 'it may not be as bad as stated', at no point do I assert that assets exceed liabilities. It may be that they do not, and it could still not be as bad as otherwise states.

I realise that we are not trying to work out 'net worth', but in actual fact you don't appear to realise that interest payments are not simply based on the level of debt. They are based in part on perceived ability to pay. If you have a high net worth, you will be in a stronger position to repay a debt - or a constituent part of it, which is how government debt works, as lots of individual loans in various forms. That would in turn tend to reduce the interest rate because it represents a lower risj to the investor. So an evaluation of assets that could be used (sold/leased/licensed/leveraged/banked) could help to show how stable things are (or are not) and affect interest rates.

First, it does not address the level of interest on the debt directly.

Do all of the solutions offered (1-20) address the level of interest on the debt directly? or do some of them address it indirectly or perhaps not at all? Will you go through and strike out those that do not, or accuse their proposers of asserting stuff they never wrote?

Second, it does imply (see bold) that the situation may not be as bad as stated.

It may not be. It may be as bad, or it may be worse. But unless you look, you'll not know.

Earlier I has said that I differ with you guys on what the actual problem is (the economy, rather than the US government finances), and it is my suspicion that if you were to look at the assets you may find ways that can be employed to use them to help with your major issue - including (and at no point do I rule this out) selling them.

Grand, but without some examples of what might be sold or leased, it is utterly meaningless. I suppose you, more than any politician or economist in the US, have come up with a keen idea? No, just a research project for others? Want some stimulus money?

Perhaps I figure that not being an American, living several thousand miles away, I may not know as much as those posters who are Americans and who may even have past or present governmental experience about what stuff the US does or does not own, and what might be useable as an asset.

Oh, but you asked . . . just in case some Redscaper has a full list of the approximate value of the properties of the USA?

Or in case they may have a better idea on how to find one. I'm getting the clear suggestion that you don't have one and perhaps have not looked for one. Perhaps simple an approximate value of the full set of properties might be a starting point. I don't know. It's your country.

Again, apparently no one in the USA has ever thought of this. You are the first! Maybe you should be running the White House--or at least the President's reelection campaign. The smartest man ever elected President hasn't thought of it--or if he has, he hasn't seen fit to mention it.

I'm sure that other people have thought about it. I'm becoming more and more confident that you are not one of them. That you use yet another opportunity to bash the President just shows how it's not about America for you, it's about getting digs in at your political enemies. Yawn...

It was such a "serious" question that you could not be bothered to answer it? Oh, okay.

There are many serious questions for which I have no answer. What caused the Big Bang (if indeed it occurred)? Is there life on other planets? What happens at the moment of death. Those are no less serious because I cannot answer, even if I fail to even try.

There was no intent to deceive on my part. So, #1 is out.

If you say so, I can only take your word for it and we'll move on to #2...

Did I create a false or misleading impression? That's debatable. Look, if you did not mean to assert that our assets outweigh our debts and/or liabilities, what would be the point of asking the question? Just to "think outside of the box?" Well, it's so far outside of the box that no one in American politics is discussing your idea.

I did not 'mean' to assert that assets outweighed debts and/or liabilities and, crucially to the comparison with the definition in the dictionary at no point did I assert it. To say that I asserted something as being an 'absolute truth' when I didn't even actually assert it does what, exactly?

Misinterpreting your intent (allegedly) is not the same as "an intent to deceive." So, #2 is out.

No, that's just repeating the logic that excludes #1, by restating #1. Back to #2, eh, because it's still outstanding...

The salient point on definition #2 is that you did (and are attempting to continue to) say that I had asserted something that I did not, and so created a false impression. Whether you intended to, or not, that is what you did.

I didn't lie.

Not only did you lie, you are lying in order to 'prove' that you didn't. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not bothered as long as you acknowledge it. I know an apology is out of the question. What your chosen deity thinks about bearing false witness is, of course, between you and them.

Believe me, Steve, do not call someone a liar unless I believe that they can be demonstrably proven to have lied. The way to prove me wrong (and that you are not a liar) would be to show that I did indeed assert assets were greater than liabilities and/or debt. All you have done is prove that you thought I was implying it as I was writing things that do not in any way assert it. I am now confident, and will hereby assert as an 'absolute truth' that you, Doctor Fate did lie and are thus a liar.

Perhaps you need to look up 'assert' in that dictionary of yours?

The current position is that our interest payments are going to quadruple.

What is this assertion based on? Over what period will this happen? Is it measured in 2011 dollars, absolute dollars, %GDP or %Spending? How is a future projection part of the current position?

I linked them. You read them and get back to me.

In all your many posts with their links to op-eds about why Buffett is wrong, I missed the link to Politifact. Now I see it (a single link, not multiple links). It's talking about over the next 10 years, and it being from projections in a budget that has been superseded. So that's two questions answered. ta. Still, it's not clear whether that is absolute dollars or 2011 dollars, and the article doesn't go into the basis of the projection in any real detail, because it's spending more time trying to work out whether it exceeds the military budget within a 'few years'.

This is the game you play--you provide no info, ask questions, then get outraged by whatever. I'm not playing your stupid game. Play it solitaire.

I'm not outraged. I'm amused, even though I'm not 'playing a game', but trying to engage with you on an aspect of finance in a debate about finance. My amusement comes purely from my observation of your responses rather than my own efforts...

It's so funny to watch someone trying to use a dictionary definition to prove that they didn't lie and failing in a heap of faulty logic.

It's hilarious to see that you apply standards to my contribution that you don't apply to anyone else's - that suggestions must address directly the debt interest. Equally that you dismiss any suggestion from the 'left' that saves less than, say $100bn, but at the same time don't say a thing about ideas that might only bring in a few $billion at best if the source is a right winger. Hypocrisy is so chortlesome.

And it's positively side-splitting that you say I provide no 'info' but I at least can up with four different ways to use an asset to make money (one of which can directly reduce debt interest, one of which can increase revenue and the other two would raise some capital that can be used to reduce the debt, and so indirectly the interest) on top of selling it now or selling it later.

Besides, the whole premise of the thread is that 'Your President Needs Help'. Well, not having a president, they clearly don't need my help, do they? But what little I can proffer appears to cause you some discomfort.

I know you don't like my questions, though. I bet it's easier when people you are preaching at simply go 'Amen' rather than 'but, err, sorry, based on what exactly?'. While you are preaching to the choir (those on here who agree that the US needs to cut, cut, cut spending and reduce taxes, and give Obama a boot up the bum for luck), that's fine and dandy, but it's those who have doubts that will need to be convinced if you want to change any minds. When doubts are expressed as questions, answering in the way you do does not inspire confidence that you have the answers that you profess to.

Danivon, here's what I know: you are a troll. You provide zero information, cast false allegations about, and even, in what seems to be a violation of the nature of the Internet, make personal attacks based on private information.

I'll not waste another moment debating your ethereal thoughts. Of course, should you realize you are nothing but a troll, I'll leave open the door.

Doctor Fate. I make no false allegation. You told a mistruth. I didn't pick up on it until you stated baldly that you had not lied. Looking back, it was a clear lie, and having caught you in it, you resort to mithering about the definitions of words (a la mode Clintonesque). If you can't admit something so obvious - that you decided to reply to the subext that you inferred rather than my words, but to pretend that they were my words, then perhaps it's for the best that you walk away.

And as for violating your privacy or whatever, I have no idea what you are blethering on about.

When someone picks up the toys littering around the pram and hands them back to you, I'm sure you'll be back to fling mud at me and then pretend that I am the only problem. Toodles!

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:We have several assets that can be used.

...
3. California - As Steve pointed out, an entire state could be sold. SOLD AS IS

I'm not sure it would be Constitutional for the USA to sell a State, though. It was legal for the USA to buy territory from another country, and so perhaps some of the USA's overseas territories could be sold off, but a member State of the Union would surely have to consent to be removed from the Union if it had not itself transgressed the USC.

By coincidence, today I saw a link to a page from a while ago that reminded me of this 'idea' to sell California.

Why would you want to even if it were remotely legally possible? California is the largest state in the Union in terms of it's economy (and population), and contributes about 13.5% of US GDP.

What's more (and this was what I was reminded about when I saw this: California is one of the states that contributes more in Federal taxation than is spent there in Federal dollars. In other words, without California, the US would be further in deficit than it is now (the correlation in red states and blue states between both maps is a subject for another thread, I feel).

How much is not something there's a firm figure for today, but I did a bit more digging and found this: Tax Foundation study has the most up to date figures which unfortunately only go up to a 2007 study and the 2005 figures – they are asking for help to produce a new study.

The top ten in dollar terms are (based on 2004 so as to avoid Katrina effects):

1. Virginia
2. Maryland
3. Alabama
4. Pennsylvania
5. Missouri
6. Texas
7. Louisiana
8. Tennessee
9. Kentucky
10. Arizona

The top ten in ratio terms (as in Federal spending/federal tax contribution) for the same year are:

1. New Mexico
2. Alaska
3. Mississippi
4. W Virginia
5. Alabama
6. N Dakota
7. Virginia
8. Louisiana
9. Montana
10. Hawaii

DC and the hinterland States are clearly big federal spending areas, but wherever the Capitol was would be. Some are landlocked and so not easy to sell unless combined with other States, and that might affect logistics.

I reckon that selling Alaska (to Canada or perhaps Russia) and New Mexico (to Old Mexico) would between them clear your debts and help to reduce the deficit, with little impact on overall GDP or on the rest of the country. Ok, so you’d be selling oil and gas reserves, but think of it this way: you get the money for them right away without having to go through the clear pain of debating licenses and waiting for the revenues to come in. Maybe the US would end up in surplus!

Both states are on the edge, with low populations. Most people in New Mexico are of Hispanic/Latino or of Native descent, so would more easily integrate into Mexico, and likewise Alaskans and Canadians (especially those in the territories and the western provinces) have a lot in common. Roswell and the creepy town of North Pole, Alaska will go, if your motivation is to divest of some wackos.

Alternatively, some of those southern states really are dragging you down. Not sure how much you’d get for Lousiana + Mississippi + Alabama as they are still in need of repair after Katrina and the BP spill, but it would save about $35 in revenue based on pre-Katrina levels.

Of course that is if you and Steve really are serious about selling off an actual State or two, and it's in any way Constitutional for the Union to assert ownership of a whole State and then transfer that ownership to a third party without having to compensate the State involved. Personally, I think the idea just a little... oh, what is the word... ethereal?

danivon wrote:Doctor Fate. I make no false allegation. You told a mistruth. I didn't pick up on it until you stated baldly that you had not lied. Looking back, it was a clear lie, and having caught you in it, you resort to mithering about the definitions of words (a la mode Clintonesque). If you can't admit something so obvious - that you decided to reply to the subext that you inferred rather than my words, but to pretend that they were my words, then perhaps it's for the best that you walk away.

I will because you are incapable of telling the truth.

And as for violating your privacy or whatever, I have no idea what you are blethering on about.

Really? So, using my private life in an argument that i've not made my private life an issue in, that's okay? You attacked me personally based on something you know nothing about.

Congratulations. You've made my blinders list.

In fact, now it will be you, Brad, and Ray posting in the political forums. I'll keep playing Diplomacy, but I'd rather go to Afghanistan and train to be a jihadist than continue with such a disingenuous person as you are. You've sunk to lows I didn't even know you had.

When someone picks up the toys littering around the pram and hands them back to you, I'm sure you'll be back to fling mud at me and then pretend that I am the only problem. Toodles!

If you care to apologize, you may do so via personal message. Otherwise, I'm out.

I picked California because of it's proximity to Washington State and the "needling" of those from there. I could of easily picked New Jersey, Rhode Island or Florida. I don't like the Oakland Raiders, SF 49ers, California Angels, or SF Giants. I guess the Padres are OK, but I have my eye on them.

Oh, so while I was being told off for not being serious, you (and the person who was telling me off) were not actually being serious!!!

Say it ain't so, Brad...

Seriously though, are you guys going to address the use of assets beyond a simplistic "sell" idea?

Doctor Fate wrote:If you care to apologize, you may do so via personal message. Otherwise, I'm out.

I will apologise publicly, as that's how I roll.

Steve, I am sorry if I offended you in any way by taking issue with the way that you interpreted my statements and questions. I am sorry of using the metaphor of 'preaching to the choir' has offended you because it's in some way related to your current chosen profession.

I am also sorry that you felt the need to attack me and try to belittle my point because it did not fit into your narrative, and that in doing so you misrepresented me, claimed that you had not, and failed to acknowledge it. But, Steve, I forgive you.

I think this was the thread where we diverted to Buffett paying lower taxes than his secretary. The WSJ analyzed 2008 IRS data which shows a different story. The average income tax rate for different income classes is as follows:

$1 million and up 23.3%
$500K - $1mm 24.1%
$200K - $500K 19.6%
$100K - $200K 12.7%
$50K - $100K 8.9%
$30K - $50K 7.2%

This suggests that Buffett's (and now Obama's) claim that he pays tax at a higher rate than his secretary is generally not true. Even if you include the secretary's 7.65% FICA (and assume that the millionaire doesn't pay any FICA) the secretary's average tax rate will still be lower than the average millionaire or billionaire.

So 23.3 percent of a person's income is not enough in the eyes of President Obama. How much is acceptable? When you include state, local, and consumption taxes, what should the final total not exceed?

Is 50% too much?
60%, 80%?

Should the government be allowed to take everything (100%)?

So Buffett pays 3 times what his secretary does. Is that enough, or is it too much?