See, this is how we pay off the national debt: resume above-ground nuclear testing and charge admission!

10/10 for trolling. You got me. Responded to my comment where I said, verbatim, "NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THIS," to ask for number-clarification. This put distance between my comment, and then you could accuse me of saying that I think we should do that. Mad props.

Or maybe you weren't trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and very politely explain the discussion, assuming you just forgot.

QM said something silly and hyperbolic:

If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.

At least get your math right, man. No one is suggesting this, but if you seized 100% of the top 1%'s income, you'd get around $1.2T more from them than now, and that would just about cover 2012's deficit.

And $250B would cover 24 days.

In short, LEARN TO MATH.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you took all of the top 1%'s wealth, (which is what *you* said), you'd get $16T, enough to pay off our national debt or fund the federal government for 4-5 years.

Where did you get your figures? I don't believe.

http://videosift.com/video/The-National-Debt-and-Deficit-Deconstructed-Tony-Robbins

Good job.
Take all 16 trillion from the wealthiest and pay off the national debt. Smart, very smart.
Then what. Obama wants to add another 4 Trillion + over his 2nd term. Then what? Confiscate the the next set of top wealthy group?

Then after that you would be reaching down to the top 50%. Then you would have nothing left. At you rate we might be fine for another 15 years. Then what? There would be no wealth in America. Worst yet there would be no incentive.

Even if this was a 1 time deal it would be devastating to pull that much $ out of the economy.

I'm not saying that the rich could / should pay more but the country has a real spending problem on entitlements and military. We are going broke and the current ruling party wants to tax the rich another 3% and print more money and very very very little spending cuts.

Far be it if I vote against receiving $500 bucks/month from the government but it has to be done. All must suffer and all will suffer greatly if spending is not addressed in an honest straight forward way.

( Also we are not even mentioning the hundred of trillions of unfunded obligations.)

Where did you get your figures? I don't believe.

http://videosift.com/video/The-National-Debt-and-Deficit-Deconstructed-Tony-Robbins

At least get your math right, man. No one is suggesting this, but if you seized 100% of the top 1%'s income, you'd get around $1.2T more from them than now, and that would just about cover 2012's deficit.

And $250B would cover 24 days.

In short, LEARN TO MATH.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you took all of the top 1%'s wealth, (which is what *you* said), you'd get $16T, enough to pay off our national debt or fund the federal government for 4-5 years.

They'd have to pay off their portion of the national debt. They'd have to compensate the United States for all of the infrastructure we built for them. They be bankrupt on day 1.

Arm yourself with knowledge, people, or succomb to ignorance found in conspiracies..

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

Income taxes started in the 1860s. Not sure about capital gains. I don't buy your point that poor immigrants got wealthier when there were no taxes. Wealthy individuals have most often gotten rich on the labor of poorer people (think slavery).
Diverting from productive to unproductive is a matter of opinion on what is productive. I think we waste so much money on the military, but politicians are afraid to say that. Only a small percent is spent on welfare and I would argue that does improve our chances in the future.
Not sure if you've seen this... http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-the-National-Debt-and-Budget-Deficit I am concerned about the debt, but I also believe it's being used to score political points and is part of the fear agenda.
It's class envy (or wealth redistribution) when you talk about raising taxes on the rich, but what was it called when the tax rates were decreased and the loopholes were created.
>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.
The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden...And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.
...The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored...

>> ^Fairbs:

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.

The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden. Today, the national debt is so large and short term that interest rates can't go up without causing unpayable interest. Without healthy interest rates, there are no savings. Without savings, there is no real investment to upgrade those shovels to bulldozers. And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.

That being said, Romney isn't the solution. This guy is just like GWB, will say anything to get into office. The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored. Raising taxes on anyone doesn't come close to stopping the coming currency collapse. You guys are doing the economic equivalent of playing with your dicks. And it's going to become painfully obvious in the next 10 years regardless of which one of these clowns you elect.

Congratulations! Your video, Understanding the National Debt and Budget Deficit, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 7 Badge!

>> ^renatojj:

@Payback so I wouldn't have to deal with ignorant and offensive retorts. Judging by @Xaielao's comment, it didn't work.


I gotta say, as ignorant, offensive retorts go, @Xaielao's seems pretty tame...

>> ^renatojj:

Just so viewers know, the economic theories behind this guy's convoluted explanations are not accepted by all economists. Sadly, this kind of video will likely turn many people off to the subject entirely.


You're right, in the same way that not all biologists agree on evolution as the origin of species.

>> ^renatojj:

Just so viewers know, the economic theories behind this guy's convoluted explanations are not accepted by all economists. Sadly, this kind of video will likely turn many people off to the subject entirely.


I note you haven't said he's wrong...

Your video, Understanding the National Debt and Budget Deficit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you don't believe money exists, then you should have no problem giving me all of your money. I will give you 1000 angels and an invisible unicorn in return. Deal of a lifetime. PM me for my paypal address.

(In all seriousness, you should read up on economics. It sounds like Ron Paul has warped your understanding of economics.) >> ^vaire2ube:

im not watching because as i understand it, the debt only exists if you believe money really exists, and i dont think money as we are told exists really exists... they can put you in debtors prison but cant get blood from a stone... and as i understand it, the fiat currency we accept is totally unbacked by anything other than faith... and thats only good for making "bubbles"
yea i still pay my bills my cabin in the woods isnt built yet, whats your plan!