What caused the national debt?

[Cuyo]

Or you could just do both

Won't need to if you cut enough....

Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked

Time for everyone to sacrifice

They also un-employ people and slow down the economy. Too many seem to be under the impression that the government is where money goes to die. Not so. It's parked in "The Government" for a short period and is quickly re-introduced into the private sector.

Cut spending, cut GDP, period.

 

[Liability]

Let me guess, the imaginary 400 who you feel own half the country's wealth?

Here's FORBES list of those "imaginary people" Tod.

The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com

I always thought these people really existed, but apparently they don't.

Thanks for the heads up, amigo.

The list of America's 400 richest is very nice, but they own less than 2% of America's wealth.
I want the list of the 400 that Chris imagined owned more than 50% of America's wealth.
Let me know when you pull that list together, amigo.

I believe that what he (and fat boy Michael Moore) are contending is that the wealth of the richest 400 combined is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of America. So that would mean that the bottom 50% of Americans (as determined by "wealth") own less in total value, combined, than the combined wealth of the top 400.

PolitiFact assessed the statement as "true." The calculations are a bit murky. But even if it's nominally true, that still has NOTHING to do with the silly claim that this constitutes a plutocracy. It doesn't.

 

[Liability]

What caused the national debt?

Our elected leaders spent too much.

And what political party was the majority of those leaders from?

Were.

Use English, dimwit.

And the "question," as is so often the case from you, is both stupid and dishonest.

The spend-aholics have come from BOTH parties.

 

[Chris]

Debt happens when you spend more than you take in and more than you have.

Libs hear the news about that and think, "No problem! Easily solved. Just 'take in' MORE money." As this pertains to GOVERNMENT spending and "revenue," however, "take in more money" translates into TAX the people MORE and MORE and MORE! Yeehaw.

It never EVER dawns on the nitwit spend-aholic liberals that POSSIBLY (just maybe) it might make sense, instead, to STOP SPENDING so fucking much.

Or you could just do both

In some cases that might be the right determination and the proper course. In OTHER cases that would be quite foolish.

It is ridiculously high levels of spending that created this mess. Addressing THAT problem is the way out.

No, Reagan and the two Bushes created most of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Then Bush let his buddies on Wall Street run a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that ruined the economy.

That is why we are in this mess.

ReaganBushDebt.org

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

 

[Neotrotsky]

Here's FORBES list of those "imaginary people" Tod.

The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com

I always thought these people really existed, but apparently they don't.

Thanks for the heads up, amigo.

The list of America's 400 richest is very nice, but they own less than 2% of America's wealth.
I want the list of the 400 that Chris imagined owned more than 50% of America's wealth.
Let me know when you pull that list together, amigo.

I believe that what he (and fat boy Michael Moore) are contending is that the wealth of the richest 400 combined is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of America. So that would mean that the bottom 50% of Americans (as determined by "wealth") own less in total value, combined, than the combined wealth of the top 400.

PolitiFact assessed the statement as "true." The calculations are a bit murky. But even if it's nominally true, that still has NOTHING to do with the silly claim that this constitutes a plutocracy. It doesn't.

Indeed, the Left is concerned with these 400 who own more than half the wealth in the US
like it is their's to be concerned with...

But the "400 million" Chinese owning more than half of our future wealth that Papa Obama and the Left want to keep giving it to,

does not bother them

Funny how that works


Of course, if the Left and Papa Obama can sell enough of our future wealth to the Chinese
then we might be communist by default, since they will own us


This is actually dated, since the debt is even more now

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]‪Child's Pay 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chris]

Here's FORBES list of those "imaginary people" Tod.

The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com

I always thought these people really existed, but apparently they don't.

Thanks for the heads up, amigo.

The list of America's 400 richest is very nice, but they own less than 2% of America's wealth.
I want the list of the 400 that Chris imagined owned more than 50% of America's wealth.
Let me know when you pull that list together, amigo.

I believe that what he (and fat boy Michael Moore) are contending is that the wealth of the richest 400 combined is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of America. So that would mean that the bottom 50% of Americans (as determined by "wealth") own less in total value, combined, than the combined wealth of the top 400.

PolitiFact assessed the statement as "true." The calculations are a bit murky. But even if it's nominally true, that still has NOTHING to do with the silly claim that this constitutes a plutocracy. It doesn't.

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

 

[Dr.House]

Or you could just do both

Won't need to if you cut enough....

Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked

Time for everyone to sacrifice

If the government can't operate with the huge amount it takes from those paying taxes, then it needs to cut what it can hand out...

Taxing "the rich" at 100% still won't even come close to fixing the problems...

Sorry, some already sacrifice over a third of their income... Figure out how to manage with what you already have... How every household and government should operate...

 

[Chris]

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

 

[Neotrotsky]

Notice the Left is so concerned but does not volunteer to just pay more in taxes


Mr Buffet and you are free to pay more if you want


Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

 

[Neotrotsky]

Won't need to if you cut enough....

Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked

Time for everyone to sacrifice

If the government can't operate with the huge amount it takes from those paying taxes, then it needs to cut what it can hand out...

Taxing "the rich" at 100% still won't even come close to fixing the problems...

Sorry, some already sacrifice over a third of their income... Figure out how to manage with what you already have... How every household and government should operate...

The US has a spending problem
Not a tax problem

 

[Chris]

The U.S. Congress is playing hardball with the president concerning how to cut costs and increase revenue. Congress is adamant that they will not allow the millionaires to pay more income taxes. It's obvious why. The wealthy and big business donate millions of dollars to get them elected. As a result, the rich have great influence over Congress, who in turn only represent rich people's agendas.

Many people voted in tea party and other Republicans who promised smaller government and to cut spending. The voters didn't realize that these biased candidates are going to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and education and other programs that benefit middle- and low-income families.

Congress represents the wealthy, not you - Sun Sentinel

 

[Mr.Nick]

CRA loans fucked us nice...

It also gave asshats homes to borrow against.

Thats why you see assholes who live in ghettos driving BMW's with nice rims.

Do people really have to show the world how broke they are?

Sorry you should never have a car worth more than your home....

 

[Neotrotsky]

The President is late in coming to the table to talk about debt
His last budget was voted down 97 to 0 in the Senate

The Left has offered no plan with specific details in it.

CNN Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Support ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ Plan and yet
the Left goes against Americans' wishes.

When will the President and Democrats in Congress stop playing politics and
offer a real plan. No budget in 800 days by the Democrats- for shame.

Which is why the House has to go to Senate to set up a deal now.
The President basically made himself a lame duck on this issue
by playing politics.

Which, is fine, but stand out of the way and let the "grown-ups" fix
your mess Mr President.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or you could just do both

Won't need to if you cut enough....

Cuts hurt people. They are not frivolous expenditures, they are programs that people need
Our upper tax rates are the lowest in history. We offered tax cut after tax cut to boost the economy....it hasn't worked

Time for everyone to sacrifice

Our top tax rate in 1988 was 28%. That's lower than now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's FORBES list of those "imaginary people" Tod.

The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com

I always thought these people really existed, but apparently they don't.

Thanks for the heads up, amigo.

The list of America's 400 richest is very nice, but they own less than 2% of America's wealth.
I want the list of the 400 that Chris imagined owned more than 50% of America's wealth.
Let me know when you pull that list together, amigo.

I believe that what he (and fat boy Michael Moore) are contending is that the wealth of the richest 400 combined is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of America. So that would mean that the bottom 50% of Americans (as determined by "wealth") own less in total value, combined, than the combined wealth of the top 400.

PolitiFact assessed the statement as "true." The calculations are a bit murky. But even if it's nominally true, that still has NOTHING to do with the silly claim that this constitutes a plutocracy. It doesn't.

Yeah, the difference between half of America's wealth and the wealth of the bottom half of Americans is huge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or you could just do both

In some cases that might be the right determination and the proper course. In OTHER cases that would be quite foolish.

It is ridiculously high levels of spending that created this mess. Addressing THAT problem is the way out.

No, Reagan and the two Bushes created most of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Then Bush let his buddies on Wall Street run a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that ruined the economy.

That is why we are in this mess.

ReaganBushDebt.org

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

You never did prove the silly claim that derivatives caused the crisis.
Did you hear that from Michael Moore?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Micheal Moore?

Oh the fat rich white guy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The list of America's 400 richest is very nice, but they own less than 2% of America's wealth.
I want the list of the 400 that Chris imagined owned more than 50% of America's wealth.
Let me know when you pull that list together, amigo.

I believe that what he (and fat boy Michael Moore) are contending is that the wealth of the richest 400 combined is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of America. So that would mean that the bottom 50% of Americans (as determined by "wealth") own less in total value, combined, than the combined wealth of the top 400.

PolitiFact assessed the statement as "true." The calculations are a bit murky. But even if it's nominally true, that still has NOTHING to do with the silly claim that this constitutes a plutocracy. It doesn't.

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Wow! You love to repeat Buffett's lie.

In 2006, here were the rates.

$0-$7550 10% $755

$7550-$30650 15% +$755

$30650-$74220 25% +$4220

If his secretary took the standard deduction and exemption, $5150 and $3300,
her taxes would be $9445 on AGI of $51550. 18% of AGI or 15.7% of gross income.

 

[Chris]

In some cases that might be the right determination and the proper course. In OTHER cases that would be quite foolish.

It is ridiculously high levels of spending that created this mess. Addressing THAT problem is the way out.

No, Reagan and the two Bushes created most of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Then Bush let his buddies on Wall Street run a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that ruined the economy.

That is why we are in this mess.

ReaganBushDebt.org

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

You never did prove the silly claim that derivatives caused the crisis.
Did you hear that from Michael Moore?

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real 'weapons of mass destruction'

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world's output: it's been called the "ticking time-bomb".


It's a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it's a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world's biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September's falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world's biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can't be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it's been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

 

[Chris]

I believe that what he (and fat boy Michael Moore) are contending is that the wealth of the richest 400 combined is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of America. So that would mean that the bottom 50% of Americans (as determined by "wealth") own less in total value, combined, than the combined wealth of the top 400.

PolitiFact assessed the statement as "true." The calculations are a bit murky. But even if it's nominally true, that still has NOTHING to do with the silly claim that this constitutes a plutocracy. It doesn't.

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Wow! You love to repeat Buffett's lie.

In 2006, here were the rates.

$0-$7550 10% $755

$7550-$30650 15% +$755

$30650-$74220 25% +$4220

If his secretary took the standard deduction and exemption, $5150 and $3300,
her taxes would be $9445 on AGI of $51550. 18% of AGI or 15.7% of gross income.

That doesn't include all taxes.

Nice try though.