Wonder where the "TEA PARTY" is going to stand on this?

[genpop]

http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-still-...095645624.html

[T_Won]

$400,000 a year in taxes for a Civil War park. 10,000 visitors a year. Seems they could fund the park well enough without taxpayer money, if they charge $10 for entry. Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me.

[genpop]

$400,000 a year in taxes for a Civil War park. 10,000 visitors a year. Seems they could fund the park well enough without taxpayer money, if they charge $10 for entry. Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me.

I bet you anything that the Tea Party remains silent on this. Clearly an unnecessary tax which they are supposed to be against. However, the following quote alone is why the tea party won't come out against it:
"one long-serving black legislator who thought the tax had been done away with said he wants to eliminate state funding for the park".

[T_Won]

Its small beans and will go unnoticed except in this community. We need tens of trillions in cuts, not hundreds of thousands. But in theory, this is something they should be against. I would even say the government needs to start selling off the mass amounts of land and parks they own to private companies and use the cash to pay down the debt.

[T_Won]

There is 650 million acres they could sell:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/06...owns-the-west/

[genpop]

Its small beans and will go unnoticed except in this community. We need tens of trillions in cuts, not hundreds of thousands. But in theory, this is something they should be against. I would even say the government needs to start selling off the mass amounts of land and parks they own to private companies and use the cash to pay down the debt.

You do know that the tea parties supposedly are against excessive taxation at all levels?

[T_Won]

Isn't that what I said?

[genpop]

Isn't that what I said?

well you were talking about how its small beans compared to the national debt but i was saying that states have deficits and debts too.

[T_Won]

Keep reading.

[genpop]

[QUOTE=T_Won;1097961]Keep reading.[/QUOTE


and I agree

[T_Won]

Where do you stand on the federal government selling land to pay down the debt? (That's what I would do if this were my personal debt).

[genpop]

Where do you stand on the federal government selling land to pay down the debt? (That's what I would do if this were my personal debt).

It all depends on the location. Anything militarily strategic or could be redeveloped for fed transportation....I'd be a no.

[saltydawg]

Where do you stand on the federal government selling land to pay down the debt? (That's what I would do if this were my personal debt).

No need to sell land. For every 3 dollars of spending cuts raise 1 dollar of revenue.

Cap, balance and close loopholes

[atobulldog]

No need to sell land. For every 3 dollars of spending cuts raise 1 dollar of revenue.

Cap, balance and close loopholes

I agree Salty.

[T_Won]

No need to sell land. For every 3 dollars of spending cuts raise 1 dollar of revenue.

Cap, balance and close loopholes

I don't think the government can really control revenue. Revenue usually increases during prosperous times only, and the government can't really create prosperous times. They can create an environment that may enable prosperous times... low taxes, few regulations, etc, but they can't create business or jobs.

They are refusing to get serious about spending cuts. To get the kind of revenue they need to fund all the social programs, I don't see why they wouldn't sell land. It's hard to find much information about the land and it's value... I've seen that the gov't owns 1/3 of the land in the US and the total tangible assets of the gov't is $46 Trillion. I don't know how much of that is the land. If half of it is land, then they can pay for the social programs for another 50 years or so.