• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debt Crisis is Worse than we Think

They forgot what made them great. If they can remember who they are and what they once stood for, I believe they can turn it around again.

But they are going to have to elect a president who will do what's necessary to get the budget in line with reality again, and a Congress and Senate that will support her..
Too many are getting goodies from the sweat of others and over half don't pay federal income taxes at all.

They will continue to vote themselves benefits until the system falls apart. Appears this may be the beginning of that process.

.
 
Too many are getting goodies from the sweat of others and over half don't pay federal income taxes at all.

They will continue to vote themselves benefits until the system falls apart. Appears this may be the beginning of that process.

.

That was a perfect description of the Fortune 400
 
Too many are getting goodies from the sweat of others and over half don't pay federal income taxes at all.

They will continue to vote themselves benefits until the system falls apart. Appears this may be the beginning of that process.

.

That's what they've done elsewhere and the American people caught the same disease thinking that this time, maybe this time, it would be different.

But the results are always the same. The something for nothing crowd will insist they can have their goodies and others will somehow, through the magic of government pressure, pay for it. This should be a lesson for generations to come, though it might be to late to escape the tentacles of big government. Perhaps the easiest way to mend the mess would be less federal government and a return to greater State rights. That way the people closer to home can better manage their own affairs, or leave for a responsible State which can.

Perry and others might be on to something with the threat to secede. It could be the only way they can ever attract sufficient attention to the problem and get people looking to the future rather than bickering about whose fault it is..
 
That was a perfect description of the Fortune 400
When did companies in the Fortune 400 get the right to vote?

The only way a company can vote is with their feet.

.
 
When did companies in the Fortune 400 get the right to vote?

The only way a company can vote is with their feet.

.

They vote by paying off politicians...
 
They vote by paying off politicians...
Yeah, well there is that. Since ObamaCare went into effect, our USA affiliate spends a lot more on lobbying than on advertising. They also give their employees more bonus money as a reward for them being politically active and contributing to the right politicians. ;)

.
 
When did companies in the Fortune 400 get the right to vote?

The only way a company can vote is with their feet.

.

The Fortune 500 is corps

The Fortune 400 is made of people!!! Aiyeeee!!!
A Look at the Tax Returns of the Top 400 Taxpayers - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007, according to their tax returns, three times the slice they got in the 1990s, according to the Internal Revenue Service. They paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in that year.

In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren’t identified, the IRS also said that only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket. The 400 best-off taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, lower than in any year since the IRS began making the reports in 1992

Tax Rate for Richest 400 Taxpayers Plummeted in Recent Decades, Even as Their Pre-Tax Incomes Skyrocketed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year.

To make it into the top 400, a household needed an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million in 1992 (in 2007 dollars) and $139 million in 2007.

The decline in effective tax rates at the very top is due in large part to the capital gains tax cuts enacted in 1997 and 2003. The top marginal tax rate on capital gains is now 15 percent, less than half the top tax rate on wages and salaries. The top 400 taxpayers derived two-thirds of their income from capital gains and qualified dividends in 2007.

2-22-10tax-f1.jpg

The 400 Richest Americans Pay An 18% Tax Rate - Robert Lenzner - StreetTalk - Forbes
 
The horrible thing is, the worst time to cut spending is during a recession.

Finally, someone at DP acknowledges this fundamental precept of economics. Cutting spending will cut jobs and cut tax revenues.
 
When did companies in the Fortune 400 get the right to vote?

The only way a company can vote is with their feet.

.

The Supreme Court's Citizen United Ruling gave corporations the right to vote..... As you know, in America, its 1 dollar - 1 vote.
 
We need to cut spending. America has a bad addiction with spending what is not there and increasing the size of government to become a bloated unnecessary bureaucracy. We need to cut spending, we need to shrink government, we need to reform social programs and the tax code.

We need to retrench on American Imperialism. Sorry, but most of the economic problems in the US are directly or indirectly related to our middle eastern war efforts. Its time to shut down all foreign wars, close 1/2 of our foreign bases and put the hawks out to pasture, we can no longer afford these adventures.
 
We need to retrench on American Imperialism. Sorry, but most of the economic problems in the US are directly or indirectly related to our middle eastern war efforts.
No war for social security! No war for medicare!
 
Wow, 400 votes? Any politician would have to go after that block. :roll:

.

Umm, polticians do go after their votes, their support, and most importantly, their money

Just about everyone else knows this.
 
Finally, someone at DP acknowledges this fundamental precept of economics. Cutting spending will cut jobs and cut tax revenues.


And with a $1,500,000,000,000 current annual spending deficit any thoughts on not cutting spending will result in?


(Hint: Moodys has already suggested a clue to the answer...)






.
 
A Moodys chief economist also said;

There is a danger in cutting too much too soon, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who favors big spending cuts so long as they don't take effect for a few years.
"I wouldn't add to cuts this year or next, given the fragile economy," Zandi said. "There is already plenty of restraint on the books."

Doh! A bad time for spending cuts? - Jul. 11, 2011

Spending cuts could trigger a second recession. That would not only be worse than getting a credit downgrade, but would lead to one anyway.
 
And with a $1,500,000,000,000 current annual spending deficit any thoughts on not cutting spending will result in?


(Hint: Moodys has already suggested a clue to the answer...)






.

You are either confused as to the issue or are deliberately trying to further confusion on the issue: cutting spending is not the issue. What Moody's wants us to do first is to increase the debt ceiling for a reasonable duration immediately. This be done with NO strings attached. Then, with the US once again acknowledging its obligation, Moody's would also like to see, in the not too distant future, a plan to reduce the deficit. Cutting spending can be a part of the deficit reduction plan, but it doesn't have to be the only part.

The Republicans are the ones that have deliberately obfuscated the issue by making this look as if cutting expenditures was the issue.
 
You are either confused as to the issue or are deliberately trying to further confusion on the issue: cutting spending is not the issue. What Moody's wants us to do first is to increase the debt ceiling for a reasonable duration immediately. This be done with NO strings attached. Then, with the US once again acknowledging its obligation, Moody's would also like to see, in the not too distant future, a plan to reduce the deficit. Cutting spending can be a part of the deficit reduction plan, but it doesn't have to be the only part.

The Republicans are the ones that have deliberately obfuscated the issue by making this look as if cutting expenditures was the issue.


Don't think there is any confusion on my part. In the next few days there will be an agreement in Washington and the debt ceiling will be raised.

And all indications are that in the coming months the credit rating of the U.S. will still get lowered. And the reason for the drop in rating is the out of control debt and continued deficit spending.




.
 
Don't think there is any confusion on my part. In the next few days there will be an agreement in Washington and the debt ceiling will be raised.

And all indications are that in the coming months the credit rating of the U.S. will still get lowered. And the reason for the drop in rating is the out of control debt and continued deficit spending.
.

And the lowered rating will be the result of PAST spending and deficits. WRT future spending and deficits, Moodys' was clear; their rating will depend on cutting the deficit, not cutting spending.
 
Here's a "companion" video to the article in the OP. It's called "Aftershock" by Bob Weidemer (based on the book of the same name) giving an interview outline the consequences of Congress not addressing entitlement reforms long ago and Wall Street screwing us. I think everyone should give this video a look.

(Warning: Weidemer pimps his newsletters near the end of the video, but he spells out how we got to this point and the actions that need to be taken to avert a total economic collapse very clearly.)
 
Clinton was male, and the only president to get the budget in line with reality

Who controlled Congress back then? The Republicans?
 
Who controlled Congress back then? The Republicans?

And yet, when the repubicans controlled the house, the senate AND the white house, they spent like mad, and increased deficits and doubled the national debt.
 
Let's see,

Deficit = bad

Spending cuts = bad

Let me guess, the only solution are tax increases and closing, "loopholes"? :rofl

Niiiiiice spin on the facts.

More assertions devoid of any supporting facts
 
Back
Top Bottom