The next big question on the federal debt limit could be whether to start selling the government’s holdings of gold at Fort Knox — and at least one presidential contender, Ron Paul, has told The New York Sun he thinks it would be a good move.
The question has been ricocheting around the policy circles today. An analyst at the Heritage Foundation, Ron Utt, told the Washington Post that the gold holdings of the government are “just sort of sitting there.” He added: “Given the high price it is now, and the tremendous debt problem we now have, by all means, sell at the peak.”
His comment came in the wake of not only the government having reached the statutory debt limit of $14.29 trillion but also the release of a report by the Heritage Foundation of a report on asset sales. The report outlined how a “partial sales of federal properties, real estate, mineral rights, the electromagnetic spectrum, and energy-generation facilities” might garner the federal treasury $260 billion over the course of the next 15 years.
Do what everyone else has to when they’re broke, have a garage sale.
Even with selling all of that we’re still not digging out of this hole.
Kind of sad that even if we sell a bunch of stuff it would still only scratch the surface of this problem.
In short like many credit card addicts, we have a spending problem, and until we come to that realization and do something about it no amount of extra income is going to solve the problem
But are we sure there is really gold there? Maybe the Tungsten stories were true…
Didn’t he want the gold standard back?
This is ridiculous. You don’t sell off your national gold reserves to make a quick buck, they’re a long-term asset. How about rewriting the tax code to be fair and sustainable? We know that Clinton’s policies worked.
Republicans make a big show about wanting to cut spending, but I have yet to see an actual list of things they can cut that would balance the budget. Turns out we have a pretty minimal welfare state compared to other developed nations.
#2 You’re right. But, let’s not all of us get brainwashed by the right wing nut cases into thinking that it’s all a spending problem. We have a “making” problem also. People who are out of work don’t pay taxes. Without taxes the spending problem is worse. We need to tax the rich and modify our unfair trade agreements. A penalty tax on corporations that outsource would help. Something needs to be done, for sure. Revenue needs to be generated.
We’ll always we be broke until we stop fighting other countries’ bonehead wars on the other side of the world.
Just another Repuke HOT BUTTON !!! Let the Bush era Tax Cuts expire and we won’t need to have a National Garage Sale !!!
Assuming there IS any gold in Fort Knox, might not hurt to spend some instead of raising the debt ceiling. Didn’t someone (Ron Paul?) try to get an audit done of our gold reserves a couple of years ago and it was beaten down? Might not be anything to sell.
Might have been better off if Goldfinger had set off his dirty bomb. Then, at least, we’d still have proven reserves. Not useable perhaps but proven.
# 6 Somebody_Else said, “You don’t sell off your national gold reserves to make a quick buck, they’re a long-term asset.” No one is suggesting a quick buck. The people above are suggesting that in a time of crisis – which I believe we are fast approaching – there’s nothing wrong with using your assets responsibly. What is an asset good for, otherwise?
They can go to cash4gold.com and get the money overnight.
😉
$260 billion is chump change. I mean, it’s all of 50 or so days of Oborrowing.
#7 – yeah, if people still have money, it means the greedy bastards have to be taxed into the same misery as everyone else. Confiscate it all!
On a return of investment equity the military seem to be left out of the discussion. They are the largest cause of the federal debt bubble. Hire them out to the highest foreign bidder.
Can’t wait to find out it’s all gold-plated titanium anyway. 🙂
sargasso_c: I doubt that the US military can be legally “hired out” to anyone but the military, as it is sworn to the USA.
What can be done is reducing the military to reasonable numbers. We have no current need for a large standing military. Unused equipment can be mothballed until really needed.
On the gold held by the Feds: keep it until needed. It’s a strategic metal like tungsten.
Keep the gold sell Texas, well not Austin but the rest of it. I would have said Utah but it’s just to pretty.
It would be a good move. Then buy it when the price drops.
#21 TDud
This is your hero Ron Paul suggesting this. Reading is fundamental.
But I suppose he wants to change how things are so that makes him a dirty liberal.
How about we deal with China and the trade deficit first. Make China invest in American businesses like we do to every other nation like Japan, etc…
Then we examine each and every government program and cut the pork.
After all, when we the people run out of money, we:
Find more work, and cut our spending.
Long term solutions, not short term fixes.
Sell it and invest in twinkies and ho-hos. After the nuclear holocaust we’ll have piles of food with an expiration date of never.
mmmmmm . . . ho-ho’s.
#26 Tdud
Why would the oil companies want to build refineries, regardless of regulatory rules?
Right now they’re selling all the gas they can make, for whatever the price. Improved supply would only lower the price.
Even if a larger refinery infrastructure were beneficial, its a risky move. The world oil supply is in flux, and mostly in decline. Why invest in refineries that might not get steady use, and may never pay back the investment?
Lets see.
Debt = $14.29 trillion.
Assets = $260 billion.
Lets put them on the same value
debt = $14,290 billion
assets = 260 billion
This country owes about 550 time what it has to sell.
We’re so fucked…
Its a good thing we have a huge military because I’d be worried about China coming knocking demanding the rent.
It sort of looks like everybody else got the peace benefit from the end of the cold ward but us.
And our elected morons want to give tax breaks for the rich and benefits to the corporations.
Lets apply zero based budgeting to the Federal gummint.
#28 Tdud
1. Rush says a lot of stupid shit. You don’t do your argument any favors by quoting him.
2. I’m not Obama’s investment counselor, nor do I set foreign policy regarding loans to South American Companies. What I do know is that you answered my question with another question that may or may not be relevant.
Why would oil companies do more than supply “just enough” and why would they make an infrastructure investment that may not work out long term?
I’m sure your anarchistic desire to eliminate the EPA and all regulation would be *just lovely* until we all died in 20 years from environmental toxins.
alfie, you dimwit. If the EPA and state agencies took all their environmental regs off the books and every US state government (red and blue) allowed a refinery to be built without being lynched by their voters (red and blue) then there still wouldn’t be a single refinery built.
It takes 15 to 20 years to recoup the investment on a refinery. The current refineries aren’t operating at full capacity now. We’re at or past peak oil. It would be a significant capital loss to build one now, or even in the last 20 years. Simple math.
BTW, Palin raised revenue in Alaska by significantly raising corporate taxes and working with the democrats. Oops sorry, I know we’re not supposed to say that out loud.
And someone give alfie a nickel so he can buy a computer.
Also, more refineries would have been shut down in the US except that EPA regulations make it too costly. There’s a little bargain with the devil that no one talks about.
Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection is even amused.
#5, I think their is the crux of our disagreement. See, I have delt with people who can’t help but spend everything, and then some. The last thing you ever do to these people is give them more money to spend, on their promise that they will get control of their dept, it never happens. They happily take the extra income, and spend it as well.
That is why I am not even willing to consider tax increases until the can at least balance their budget. Then we can debate the tax increases for paying down the debt.
I mean, lets not lie to ourselves here. Do you really think that if we give our government extra money they will take that money and use it to balance the budget (and that’s not even considering what increasing taxes on the job producers in this country will do)? No, as soon as they have that money they will use it to buy more votes, and we will have an even bigger debt. The government needs to prove that they can handle what they have before they are allowed to have even more.
339 Tdud, please chide #38 TDud about smearing.
If you don’t want me to “smear” Rush, then you should get him to stop saying stupid shit. Its immaterial and irrelevant, but *you brought him up.*
When I was looking up refinery regs a few minutes ago i found this article:
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/09/business/09refinery.html
It seems someone did try to build a refinery in 2k5. Why wasn’t Bush out there karate chopping EPA inspectors and digging the foundation?
Its you who is not dealing with the realities of a problem more complex than you give credit for:
Why would oil companies do more than supply “just enough” and why would they make an infrastructure investment that may not work out long term?
#34 foobar
I’d rather we all pitched in so he can buy a clue.
alfie, you doorknob. Hmmmm, a Cheney led White House with a sheep dip compliant congress didn’t touch the government regulations for 8 years. I wonder why?
Oil companies want more production. Yup. They need it to fill their existing refining capacity. The EPA standards set a nice high bar back in the Reagan days so oil companies could get tax incentives and government backed loans to increase the efficiency of their existing infrastructure. There is roughly half the number of refineries is the US now with roughly the same capacity output.
Oil companies think in 15-20 year time frames. You have to think about it that way. They are also politically adept. Politicians of any stripe can’t be seen as being “in the pocket of big oil” so things are nicely managed through regulatory agencies like FERC and the EPA.
Oil companies margins are higher now, government co-pays, jobs are kept in key districts, supply and delivery infrastructure stays intact. Everybody won.
The Obama administration is quietly opening up production just like every other administration did for the last 30 years. When it’s politically expedient to do so.
Oh, and your computer still sucks. And Palin was still smart to raise taxes and work the democrats (almost no Alaskan republican house member would vote with her). Just don’t believe the BS hype you’ve been spoon fed by Fox news. She’s gotten everything she wanted, and good for her.