Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should We Take The 1% Money to Pay off the Debt?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Agreed Wrabbit!!!


As well as Warren Buffet and I am sure we can come up with a larger list.

Your example of George Soros was spot on and perfect though!




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Why can't we magically wipe out the debt, and then magically give back people what they had in the first place? I mean, we already are printing money out of thin air? We're not backed by anything...

Its the rothschild conspiracy. Lookup "behold the pale horse". They control your money, allow wealth to build, loan you money, then they # you and also somewhere in the middle start wars and crap for no reason



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


if the interest on the debt was removed america would be debt free in less than 8 years,
20-30% of all costs are to service debt,
this does nothing to remove the principal debt,
which means taxes could be lowered by 10-15 % and in less than 10 years the debt would be gone

xploder



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 

Yeah sure, why not.
And when the Govt has blown through that money they confiscated, just go after the next highest group and so on.

Isn't growing Govt fantastic???



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Here is a thought if people want pensions,and social programs pay for them instead of taking money from that evil 1 %.

Sure enough government blows money.

Sure enough the real cost of debt between intra government debt and extragovernment debt can not be paid for at the behest of the majority.

People have been talking about the 14th amendment that expressly prohibits robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

intra government debt is the money owed to SS,medicaid,medicare,welfare extra government debt covers the trillions we are currently borrowing from China, and other countries.

Should we take the 1%'s money to pay off the debt?

www.usdebtclock.org...

Why?

So we can spend money paying for studying cow farts,hookers,government portraits, fish, and my personal favorite, "did jesus die for the klingons".

Wake the hell up to the crap that is being shoveled in this country.

Forget about the fiscal cliff this nation went off the stupid cliff long ago,
edit on 7-12-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by winterkill
So if we took all of the money from
- The Rich
- The Corps
- The sporting events
- Every source of income in America,

We could pay off 1 Trillion dollars of the Debt.

Only 15 more to go.

Define hooped.


For effs sake...Mitt Romney was going to pay off the debt by cancelling big bird?

See ....your reasoning fails the smell test.

The GOP likes to constantly bitch and moan about pointless spending...ya know...public television, incentives for clean energy, caring for the old and sick...you get the idea...waste of money and the reason that we are in debt?

While at the same time screaming that taxing the rich....a waste of time, it won't cover our debt.

IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR...YOU CAN"T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...

If Dems made that IDIOTIC argument everytime the GOP wanted to trim a program....DOES IT PAY OFF THE DEBT? NOPE...SO KEEP IT!!! Then spending would rocket.

THE STANDARD ISN'T WHETHER OR NOT A SINGLE PROGRAM BEING CUT OR FEW MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS IN TAX ON THE 2% WILL BY ITSELF PAY OFF OUR DEBT....THAT IS STUPID...BORDERLINE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED...THINKING. That standard means NO revenues and unlimited spending.

The standard is whether or not it should be PART OF THE SOLUTION...and letting a tax break for the wealthy expire sure as SH*& should be after all the coddling of the past decade...and BAILOUTS...and LOOP HOLES...and SUBSIDIES...all directly out the pockets of the suffering middle class.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   


If Dems made that IDIOTIC argument everytime the GOP wanted to trim a program....DOES IT PAY OFF THE DEBT? NOPE...SO KEEP IT!!! Then spending would rocket.


IF ? never have seen them make an "intelligent" argument yet.

Given that taxing the evil rich does not create jobs or wealth who is trying to have it both ways?

For 8 years the people who control 2/3rds of the Government cried about spending, and have turned around and spent double than the last guy.

But that doesn't matter all they want is their "pound of flesh".



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


No, that's ludicrous, I'm assuming you meant to be so and that you're stating that's what half the country wants. You would be incorrect if so. What us 'leeches' want is something called fairness, now that doesn't mean everyone is equal and gets paid the same for everything. CEO's should make a fantastic salary BUT does it need to be fantastic to the point of hurting bottom to middle rung employees? Or better question does it need to be so fantastic that to have such great salaries and bonuses work has to be outsourced from American manufacturing to China or India?

For example:
Michael T. Duke has been the CEO of Walmart for 3 years his total compensation to date is 53.93 million dollars. I'm sure the guy is a very hard worker, I'm sure he is talented and very intelligent... I'm sure he deserves a wealthy salary for what he does. BUT... if say the clothing sold at Walmart was made in America how many Americans would have a job right now? How many more tax payers would we have, how many less on entitlement programs?

If Mr. Dukes total 3 year compensation were around 5 million dollars, isn't that still fantastic? How many people at a decent wage could Walmart employ with that extra 16 million a year? How many American factories could run on that?

To be honest the tax hikes on the top 2% won't even scratch the surface of the problem pointed out in my example. To compensate for the outright greed of these corporations (all the taxes they DONT pay, all the jobs they DON'T create) we would need a tax hike of like 20% on these pigs. That isn't going to happen.

To sum up: Should the 1% pay off the national debt? No.
Should the rules change so that we have a greater influx than drain? Absolutely.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Sorry,but what you want is to dedicate what someone else makes, because you believe they make more then what you think should be allowed.
And, you believe that the Govt should be able to dictate this via a progressive sliding tax code which, by definition, punishes those that earn more.
I had no idea that we were in Soviet Russia, or Communist China.


What was the estimated time for Govt funding, if all the wealth was taken from the 1% again???


Yeah, we have a tax problem, and not a Govt spending problem.....Sure sure.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


No.

It used to be that corporations had to apply for charters and had to be approved by the local governments. Now you simply need to register. Charters used to be a sort of agreement that the corporation had to be healthy for the constituents of the local government. I think my above example clearly shows that Walmart is not a healthy choice for any constituents of any local government that they are located in. With the charter system, their charters could and should be revoked.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I think the Gov. should just get out an eraser...

If any country gets pissy that we're not going to pay them back,


This is where I get confused. What can other countries do with U.S. money? Hell, recently a store owner refused a quarter from me because it was Canadian. Aren't we supposed to pay material goods to other countries. Gold? Sheep? I have no idea.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Let's face it, 16 T isn't going to ever be paid down.

Let's spin the power table, every corporation knows how it works.

You RUN up debt. You then tell 'em to get bent, that you're not paying/have no way to pay. In an effort to save something of what they lent they then forgive huge amounts of the debt & lower your rate. You also don't really spend the money, you keep it in house paying it to yourself in a vertically stacked fashion.

You take a short term beating, but in the end you're free and clear with their money that you just kept paying to yourself.

How you think Corporations got to where they are today? Look at how Disney got the low rate on their loan for Euro Disney.

We're outta debt, they have no power of us and they have no capital to lend out as they're out. You win the war by spending their money. If we're smart, we have our intelligence agencies manufacture a need for us that everyone comes giving us money!

No?

Derek

PS tongue is planted in cheek with above post, but it would work.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
2011 US Debt interest payments alone = $450 Billion Dollars
2011 US Entitlement Spending alone = $2,100 Billion Dollars
2011 US Military (and Homeland Security) Spending alone = $900 Billion Dollars
2011 US Education Spending = $115 Billion Dollars
2011 US Spending (pretty much everything else) = $240 Billion Dollars
2011 US Tax Collected = $2,315 Billion Dollars

Net = $1,500 Billion Dollars (+) added to the US Debt.
(This is very simplistic and the debt number doesn't match the actual recorded debt increase of $1.56 Trillion because of miscelaneous spending the government doesn't report in any of the above sections.)

Now, look at the above list and ponder with me why, in the blue hell, the two largest chunks of expenditures on this list are supposedly "untouchable" when simply halving them both effectively balances the US budget without the need to further bend the American tax payer over a barrel in the US government payday version of "Prima Nocte"? If you cut the US entitlement spending in half and cut the US military spending (ESPECIALLY elimination of the money sink known as Homeland Security), magically the budget is ballanced. PLUS, as more and more Americans realize "Holy crap balls, I better get my butt to work because I'm not getting paid by the government to do nothing!" the taxable funds pool will increase, equally a much higher revenue for the government (without futzing with the rates and hosing those of us who have actually been productively working to support the ever increasing percentage of takers) will be realized. Put this added income towards debt paydown and the interest payments will start to decrease. Voila! Budget problem solved.

Unfortunately, real solutions such as the above take something the majority of voters and virtual entirety of DC seriously lack: testicles. Thus, America is basically doomed to fail.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


That's assuming we want to pay off the debt, which we don't. We want to pay it down, but we don't want to pay it off.

The American people own 70% of the debt, the government is indebted to us...well, the treasury is and the government is indebted to the treasury.

Look, it's all really complicated and I don't want to worry you too much about it. Suffice to say that the debt isn't an issue, no matter how much Mitch McConnell screams, or whatever noise he makes, about it.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
How about we get the 1 percent out of our government that created the debt to begin with and give power back to the people?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


How about letiting the People who Actually Increase the National Debt 24/7 Year after Year , the Politicians in Both Political Parties Pay Off the National Debt out of Their Own Pockets ? We, the Common Private Sector People who Actually Work for a Living then Give our Hard Earned Income to those Parasites who then in turn Spend it Indiscriminately are being Played Big Time here with this Contrived Crisis wouldn't you say ? Picture a Chapter of Bankrupcy then tell those Ahass Clowns to Pay Up so we can All go back to Work Again Supporting Ourselves with Dignity........Amen Brother !



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
America needs to grow some nuts and tell the Fed we don't owe them a dime.

We control our destiny, not a few families that feel they are entitled to run global banking.

Solutions to problems that are not based on anything tangible are always simple.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
In 1980 America had about 574,000 millionaires. That is when "supply side economics" or "Reaganomics" began.

After the 2008 global meltdown that number dropped, from a high of roughly three million millionaires ( or wealthier ) to roughly two and a half million of them. That is after a major fiscal event.

Since? From June of 2011:


U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires



If further proof were needed of the two-speed recovery–the rich and the rest–now comes news that America has a record number of millionaires.

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

Wall St Journal

Then there's this...


If further proof were needed of the two-speed recovery–the rich and the rest–now comes news that America has a record number of millionaires.

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

The number of Americans with $30 million is still slightly below the pre-crisis peak. In 2010 there were 40,000 North Americans with $30 million or more, up from 36,000 in 2009.

Why are millionaires doing so much better than everyone else? Financial markets. Remember, the rich depend on financial markets (which have rebounded) while the rest of America depends on jobs and homes for wealth–both of which remain in a slump. According to the report, global equity markets rose 18% in 2010. Since the wealthy have a larger share of their fortunes in stocks, they would have benefited


Now I am not a genius with math. But I'm smart enough to know that the when you sit down to dinner with your family and one kid spoons 90% of the mac and cheese onto just his plate - then looks up and says "Uh oh, we're in some mac and cheese based trouble!... the resolution is pretty obvious.

~Heff
edit on 12/7/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
In 1980 America had about 574,000 millionaires. That is when "supply side economics" or "Reaganomics" began.

After the 2008 global meltdown that number dropped, from a high of roughly three million millionaires ( or wealthier ) to roughly two and a half million of them. That is after a major fiscal event.

Since? From June of 2011:


U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires



If further proof were needed of the two-speed recovery–the rich and the rest–now comes news that America has a record number of millionaires.

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

Wall St Journal

Then there's this...


If further proof were needed of the two-speed recovery–the rich and the rest–now comes news that America has a record number of millionaires.

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

The number of Americans with $30 million is still slightly below the pre-crisis peak. In 2010 there were 40,000 North Americans with $30 million or more, up from 36,000 in 2009.

Why are millionaires doing so much better than everyone else? Financial markets. Remember, the rich depend on financial markets (which have rebounded) while the rest of America depends on jobs and homes for wealth–both of which remain in a slump. According to the report, global equity markets rose 18% in 2010. Since the wealthy have a larger share of their fortunes in stocks, they would have benefited


Now I am not a genius with math. But I'm smart enough to know that the when you sit down to dinner with your family and one kid spoons 90% of the mac and cheese onto just his plate - then looks up and says "Uh oh, we're in some mac and cheese based trouble!... the resolution is pretty obvious.

~Heff
edit on 12/7/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)


Actually, if the kid bought the mac & cheese fixings himself, put the mac and cheese together, bought the stove where the mac & cheese was cooked, and bought the house where dinner was served, it'd be his mac & cheese and a much better anology. One does not get to a 250K annual income overnight. It most often takes decades of hard work and sacrifice to get to that level. 80+ hour work weeks, holidays away from family, debt, and so forth. What is selfish are those who did not earn that money demand an even larger chunk than is already paid (top income earners already pay the majority of the income tax) and what is annoying is that many of those people would refuse to work over a 40 hour week themselves without going on strike.
edit on 7-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Now, look at the above list and ponder with me why, in the blue hell, the two largest chunks of expenditures on this list are supposedly "untouchable"


I think I can help you with part of your question....

2011 US Entitlement Spending alone = $2,100 Billion Dollars

That is "expenditures" in the same way that a bank would choose to label you withdrawing cash you deposited for safe keeping and interest...as an "expense"

Those are withdrawls...not expenditures.. Unfunded wars?...now THAT is an expense.

Now yuo can claim that...hey...we had some wars to fund, so we borrowed from your deposits and its a pain in the ass for us to let you withdrawl the money and promised interest, but EF THAT...that is not our problem.

Go to your bank...tell them you feel bad about how expensive it is for them to allow you to withdrawl your savings and interest...offer to "halve" it for them. Then get back to me,

That is why it is considered untouchable.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution