Trump proposes leap toward socialism with "sovereign wealth fund"

CHFG8R · Feb 4, 2025

staticgator said: ↑

I'm not a Republican, as I say after voting for Trump for the 5th time in 2032.
Click to expand...

Seriously? WTF?

citygator · Feb 4, 2025

Lost on me in this thread is any reasonable support or rationale from Republicans for the US government taking on public investing like its a socialist country. Especially when there is not a pile of wealth waiting to be invested since we are a debtor nation.

wgbgator · Feb 4, 2025

citygator said: ↑

Lost on me in this thread is any reasonable support or rationale from Republicans for the US government taking on public investing like its a socialist country. Especially when there is not a pile of wealth waiting to be invested since we are a debtor nation.
Click to expand...

Its not an 'investment,' its basically what sports teams do. They will just buy TikTok or whatever and turn it over to a private entity to run it and profit from it, just like they do with sports stadiums and such. I'm afraid I have to give credit to rick for saying "stop calling it socialism" - this is just run of the mill American corruption. Just like with sports franchise potentially leaving if they dont get what they want they can be "you like your Tik Tok right, and you dont want it to go away do you?" Billionaires looting the public isnt socialism!

CHFG8R · Feb 4, 2025

citygator said: ↑

Lost on me in this thread is any reasonable support or rationale from Republicans for the US government taking on public investing like its a socialist country. Especially when there is not a pile of wealth waiting to be invested since we are a debtor nation.
Click to expand...

Definitely more of an Arab Gulf State move, IMO, than Socialist. Typical MAGA hypocrisy.

demosthenes · Feb 4, 2025

AgingGator said: ↑

I don’t consider Trump to be my boy, or trustworthy and brilliant. But he is better than Hillary and Biden any day of the week. Just because I take exception to the ridiculous things he is accused of by democrats and media doesn’t mean that I love him. Just because I take exception to the ridiculous double standard of the media, does r mean that I love him. Just because I take exception to the way democrats stretched, pushed, ripped,and contorted laws as much as possible to charge him with crimes, doesn’t mean that I love him. Just because his opposition tried to kill him, doesn’t mean that I love him. It does however mean that he is better than any Democrat except possibly Shapiro, and I would wait until his second term as governor of Pennsylvania to make that call.

Now, to answer your question, no I wouldn’t trust a single one of them to manage my money. Not one.
Click to expand...

If your prior postings didn’t already, this post confirmed it. You definitely love him.

slocala · Feb 25, 2025

This is an interesting idea:

Monetizing the US balance sheet and replace with market based appreciating assets.

The US balance sheet is undervalued: Land, minerals, natural resources, capital assets, gold reserves, etc. If one believes that SS and social safety net is off the table, something has to give to get the debt under control.

IMO, selling off land and dropping into a SWF is a bad idea. The government has not shown to be great at investing and it would be a whim of the administration in power. Not a great idea. Second, the value of America is on the backs of everyone before us. Why does this generation get to monetize that? What if the SWF crashes? Who gets to manage it? Does anyone believe there won’t just be a piggy bank from the SWF to result in even more debt and fiscal irresponsibility? Finally, this is not conservative at all.

The below opinion is slanted land conservation advocacy, but it does offer some open mindedness about a SWF. It is important to have a very cautious and planed approach thinking through public-private partnerships on conservation and ecological impacts. Will likely be done in haste, so it is a roll of the dice.

Creating an SWF to use as a tool is not an inherently bad idea. In fact, it could be designed to solve the real problems rural and energy-dependent communities face. A lot has changed since the 1970s, when timber harvests, coal mines, and grazing permits sustained family wage jobs; taxes and royalties from those activities paid for good local schools and improved public safety; and local businesses thrived. Today, even where natural resource activity is booming, a basic social contract has been broken: Tax cuts, automation, and increasing corporate ownership mean leasing on federal lands does not deliver the same benefits to local workers, businesses, and schools as it used to.

An SWF could be part of the solution for communities left behind by changes in the United States and the global economy. For example, the Center for American Progress has suggested that the federal government establish an energy SWFmodeled after the ones in Norway and New Mexico. This proposal would end direct oil and gas revenue-sharing payments and replace them with a permanent solution. A one-time, up-front endowment to capture and save fossil fuel revenue and provide stable and permanent distributions to communities. The ultimate result would be an immediate, predictable, and permanent source of income for resource-dependent communities as they transition—and it would not cost U.S. taxpayers anything.

These funds are designed to build intergenerational wealth and provide stable and permanent revenue that state and local governments depend on to fund schools, sheriff’s departments, public libraries, parks, and emergency services. With proper firewalls between land managers and fund managers, an SWF could be designed to build wealth when resources are extracted from public lands and keep public lands in public hands.
Click to expand...

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...c-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/

citygator · Feb 25, 2025

slocala said: ↑

This is an interesting idea:

Monetizing the US balance sheet and replace with market based appreciating assets.

The US balance sheet is undervalued: Land, minerals, natural resources, capital assets, gold reserves, etc. If one believes that SS and social safety net is off the table, something has to give to get the debt under control.

IMO, selling off land and dropping into a SWF is a bad idea. The government has not shown to be great at investing and it would be a whim of the administration in power. Not a great idea. Second, the value of America is on the backs of everyone before us. Why does this generation get to monetize that? What if the SWF crashes? Who gets to manage it? Does anyone believe there won’t just be a piggy bank from the SWF to result in even more debt and fiscal irresponsibility? Finally, this is not conservative at all.

The below opinion is slanted land conservation advocacy, but it does offer some open mindedness about a SWF. It is important to have a very cautious and planed approach thinking through public-private partnerships on conservation and ecological impacts. Will likely be done in haste, so it is a roll of the dice.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...c-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/
Click to expand...

Terrible idea for all the reasons you mentioned but basically boils down to being a bad idea to expose our American assets to market risks including mismanagement and abuse.

Log in

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

Trump proposes leap toward socialism with "sovereign wealth fund"

CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

citygator VIP Member

wgbgator Premium Member

CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

demosthenes Premium Member

slocala VIP Member

citygator VIP Member

Log in

Chat

Forums

Insiders Only

Free Sports

Plaza

Members

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

Trump proposes leap toward socialism with "sovereign wealth fund"

CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

citygator VIP Member

wgbgator Premium Member

CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

demosthenes Premium Member

slocala VIP Member

citygator VIP Member